*Reposted by Tim on behalf of Douglas Carswell MP*
I write this sitting in the chamber of the House of Commons listening to a "debate" on education and skills. It is now so utterly plodding and pedestrian that the gaggle of Italian tourists up in the visitors gallery got up and left after five minutes.
Despite there being only 20 or so MPs spread across the green benches, in over three hours, like most of the backbenchers in here I've not had the chance to speak for even a few minutes. (Indeed, it is precisely because they would be unlikely to get called to speak that I suspect so few MPs turn up for Commons debates like this at all.)
Commons protocol favours seniority over originality, often ensuring those with something fresh to say speak last, if at all. Despite all that standing up and down you see on TV, which MPs get called to speak is decided beforehand by officials - with little transparency.
Surely it is time to rethink Parliamentary procedure?
Rather than the current 15 minute time limit on backbench speeches, why not have 3 minute limits, but allow speakers to make several contributions? That might force Honourable Members to say what they mean, and allow points to be developed.
Rather than letting long serving MPs speak first, or favouring MPs who rarely contribute, why not give the Speaker discretion to call MPs he thinks likely to add to the debate? Perhaps then we would see a little fewer speeches simply read out.
Rather as cricket has been made more exciting with the 20/20 rules, we need to find ways of making Commons debates more punchy. As well as being more entertaining for tourists, Parliament might then actually be better at holding the executive to account.
Recent Comments