Proceeding contribution from Baroness Curran (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 February 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Backbench debate on Parliamentary Reform.
Parliamentary Reform
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. I was not sure about her constituency name, and I will refer to my lack of recall in such matters. I hesitated before taking part in the debate, because we, as politicians, must always be wary of talking about ourselves, our experience and our institutions, when we do not perhaps connect them properly with our representative role. The hon. Lady has put the matter in a proper context, because this is about effective governance. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), there have been many shifts in the governance of Britain over the past 10 to 15 years, such as devolution. It is therefore appropriate that we consider how effectively we operate. Many hon. Members have mentioned how pertinent the expenses scandal is, and how parliamentarians must rise to the challenge. If we look at what is happening in the middle east, and at how far people are prepared to go to fight for democracy, how we operate our democracy becomes significant. I hope that my contribution this afternoon will reflect my experience in the Scottish Parliament, where I continue—just about—to be a sitting Member. I have been in that Parliament since its inception 12 years ago. When I go back, I will return the fraternal greetings of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who I am sure will be welcomed back for more vibrant and lively debate. The Scottish Parliament has not been without its controversies, and I do not give it an unequivocally positive response. In my experience, there have been strengths and weaknesses along the way, and it is important to draw that to the attention of the House. In a sense, the Scottish Parliament was created to address the democratic deficit that was felt strongly in Scotland, because of the United Kingdom's governance structures. When it was established, we did not want the Scottish Parliament to be a repeat of the Westminster model—we wanted it to be different. Three fundamental strands were embedded in that Parliament. One was accountability, which I shall return to, because the point about Executive power and how it is held to account is important. The other two strands were transparency and accessibility. Since I came to the House of Commons, I have had some interesting experiences and drawn some comparisons. I cannot imagine what would happen in Scotland if an institution was created where Members were given priority in the queues or had special lifts assigned to them. There would be violent uprisings if that were the case and we considered ourselves so grand that we had to go ahead of others in the queue.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 522 c372-3WH
- 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 21:30:09 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711262
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711262
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_711262