´óÏó´«Ã½

Hyperactive Tory backbencher looks set to dominate proceedings in the Commons on Friday - with not one, but three of his private members' bills down for debate.

Mr Chope, a charter member of the Conservative awkward squad, is one of a group of backbench MPs seeking to provide their colleagues with the occasional sip of (what they doubtless regard as) the heady wine of True Toryism.

This week he's offering the Training Wage Bill, which exempts people on a training wage from the national minimum wage. Then he hopes to move on to the Compensation (Limitation) Bill, which aims to prevent conditional fee agreement success fees, and after-the-event insurance premiums being recoverable from the losing party in civil litigation. And then he has the Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill which would "extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to provide redress against local authorities which unreasonably ban events on the grounds of health and safety".

All good clean fun - and it will be interesting to see how many of these propositions he gets onto the floor of the Commons....

Most of these bills don't have sufficient priority to allow them to be taken very far, so it is safe to assume Mr Chope's main aim is to have the debate and get a government response to the issues he raises. But does the government want to have all these debates? Because the rather baroque rules under which private members' bills are considered ensure that there are a number of ways to frustrate unwanted debates - or at least use up the limited time available.

It is these procedural games which can make Commons Fridays (the normal day for private members' bills) so baffling. Step one, which now has the status of ritual, is to move a motion that "the House do now sit in private" the moment Mr Speaker opens proceedings with his traditional call of "Order, order". In the right circumstances this motion can be a kind of silver bullet, to kill off a bill - because if fewer than 40 MPs vote (40 being the current quorum for the Commons) during the consideration of a bill that bill then falls.

And remember, debates on most private members' bills are pretty poorly attended, because most MPs have gone back to their constituencies - and only a very big issue will normally tempt large numbers to stay. But the motion can only be moved once per day - so moving it before the House has started talking about any bill effectively fires that silver bullet harmlessly into the air.

But even in the act of voting there can be an opportunity for time-wasting - and if MPs try they can spin out a division involving a grand total of perhaps 20 MPs into a 20-minute exercise, Sometimes it takes an irate order from the chair for the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay, to put a stop to the deliberate dithering. And watch out later on, to see whether MPs force further divisions - the Speaker or Deputy Speaker will normally try to call a vote on the strength of the shouts of "aye" and "no" when the question is put.

They will normally say "I think the ayes (or noes) have it," but if MPs keep shouting, a formal division is called, and they all have to troop into the lobbies to cast their vote. Those who want to waste time will press for a division, those who don't will agree with the chair. But some have not yet figured out that every vote is a chance for tactical game-playing.

But that's just the icing on the cake. The main game-playing is around the limited time available on Fridays (proceedings in the Commons close at 2.30pm that day.) So, if you're opposed to the second bill on the order paper, you spin out the debate on the first - you may not care very much about it, but there are always talking points, and there are no limits on how long you can speak, apart from personal stamina, unless the chair decides you are straying from the subject or repeating yourself.

And the really smart operators wait until the "shift-change" when one deputy speaker takes over from another, and discretely slip pages of their speech that they have already read out back to the top of the pile, and read them out again....

Another classic sign of time wasting is when speeches are punctuated by rather mannered interventions: "Will my right honourable friend, who is making a most excellent speech, give way?" "I am always delighted to give way to my honourable friend who is a great expert in these matters...." It's easy to waste several minutes with a decorous exchange of parliamentary compliments around some helpful interjection, and a well-organised filibusterer will have a platoon of helpers ready, to allow them a few welcome moments relief.

The only way to beat these tactics is to have enough support on hand to force through a closure motion - but this requires 100 MPs to vote in favour of the motion "that the question be now put" and the chair will not "entertain" such a motion until they consider a proper debate has taken place. Otherwise, as long as time-wasting isn't too blatant, they can drone on as long as they are physically capable. And once debating time runs out, a bill usually has little chance of regaining pole position on a future order paper so the debate can be concluded. This is what is known as "talking out". And if you're subtle, you can pad out a debate early in the agenda to reduce the time available for something you oppose later on.

Which is why the backers of less exciting private members bills, the ones unlikely to lure 100 MPs away from their constituencies, try to strike backstairs deals with potential opponents - promising to amend their bills to meet their concerns, or pledging support for some other bill, or making arrangements that bill number one on the agenda will finish its consideration in time to leave two hours for bill number two. Normally Mr Chope, who regards most private members' bills as flabby, vexatious, well meaning and burdensome, is one of the most accomplished talkers-out of bills - but if he turns gamekeeper, he has the nous to ensure his bills go the distance.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?