Proceeding contribution from Caroline Lucas (Green Party) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 February 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Backbench debate on Parliamentary Reform.
Parliamentary Reform
I completely agree, and I look forward to having another debate on exactly that subject. Let me raise a few more issues before other Members speak. Obviously, this is a well-subscribed debate. I want to say a few words about the talking out of private Members' Bills. The Bills, which are introduced by MPs who are not Ministers, are relegated to Fridays, the day when attendance at Westminster drops as most of us go back to our constituencies. Why not move private Members' Bills to a mid-week slot so that they are better attended? We could then consider the implications of making Fridays a formal constituency day. I do not accept that it is beyond our wits to find adequate time for private Members' Bills earlier in the week without displacing other legislation. Hon. Members will be well aware that our current system allows Back Benchers deliberately to waste the time allotted for debate on a private Member's Bill in order to delay it. The vote takes place when there are likely to be far fewer Members present to support it as people leave to get to far-flung parts of the country. The talking out of private Members' Bill is an insult to other Members who want seriously to debate the Bill, to the Speaker and, most important, to the electorate who do not want to pay to run a debating chamber that is being mocked by its participants. There should be explicit rules that prevent the practice of talking out a Bill. The Wright Committee stated that ““merely procedural devices”” should not be able to obstruct private Members' Bills, but again, we have not seen much change in that respect. That Committee also referred to the popular proposition that a maximum of three hours should be given for the Second Reading debate on any private Member's Bill, which should be in cumulative and successive sittings, after which the question would be put to the Chamber on whether the Bill should receive Second Reading. In a sense, that would render pointless the act of filibustering. I shall take the fact that there was no intervention on that point as agreement, and I shall proceed with great speed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 522 c348-9WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Accountability Debates House of Commons Electronic voting Electronic equipment Private members' bills Members Parliamentary scrutiny Parliament Parliamentary session Working hours Reform Religious practice Resignations Divisions Times of sittings
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:31:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711206
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711206
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711206