Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 4 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on Chair (Terminology).
Chair (Terminology)
I rise to speak to amendment (c) to the motion on the Back-Bench business committee and to put some questions to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), about his amendment (b). The right hon. Gentleman was a worthy member of the Wright Committee—initially, until he found his new home on the Conservative Front Bench. We all congratulated him on that at the time. Two weeks ago, I thought he played a statesmanlike role in our proceedings, but I would be grateful if he could answer a number of questions about his amendment in order to keep that title untainted, if I can put it that way. There are several problems with the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. First, this House elected the Wright Committee to represent its views, consider the relevant matters and bring recommendations. It is not binding; no Select Committee report is binding. It gives rise to pause for thought when an elected Committee comes along with very strong recommendations, yet an amendment is tabled in the name of one party to ride roughshod over those recommendations. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that amendment (c), with which his amendment (b) is competing, endorses and flexibly implements the recommendations of the Wright Committee. His amendment does not do that. Thirdly, his amendment says that this can happen only""in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee"." As already noted—I intend no slight on the people serving on that Committee who I am sure do a very good job and have done so on the report about Deputy Speakers—the Procedure Committee is not an elected Committee; it is still appointed by the Whips. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for the Back-Bench business committee's terms of reference and relevant Standing Order to be determined by a Committee that is presently appointed by the Whips. Furthermore, how does he envisage that being done in the two weeks we have before Parliament is dissolved? His amendment says that it will be established""in time for the beginning of the next Parliament"—" that is good—""in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee"." I would be grateful if he would address that concern about the timing.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c1079
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Committees Elections House of Commons Public appointments Parliamentary procedure Reform Terminology Select committees Backbenchers Standing orders Private members' time Deputy Speakers Order of business Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:06:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626852
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626852
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626852