On FGM and parliamentary procedures
I do not tend to change my mind lightly or easily, Perhaps I do not change it often enough. But today Sir Christopher Chope, the MP for Christchurch, changed my mind with one word.
He changed my mind about parliamentary procedures by shouting the word "Object" and thereby blocking the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill from proceeding at second reading.
The bill was a one-line amendment to the Children's Act which would add a child being thought to be at risk of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) to the legal grounds on which a Family Court can take action, up to and including a care order, to protect a child.
This bill had been proposed by a crossbench peer and had almost universal cross-party support including from the government. Home secretary Sajid Javid's responded on twitter to Sir Christopher's action by saying that he was
"Very disappointed by this. FGM is child abuse. I am determined to stamp out this despicable and medieval practice. We will do all we can protect girls at risk."
There has been for some decades a group of MPs, generally robust opponents of "big government," who take a view that parliament should not lightly pass lots of laws and who have regularly objected to large numbers of Private Members Bills in the manner which Chris Chope - who is a long-standing member of that group - did today, and thereby stopped those bills from becoming law.
However, today was the third time when, in the view of many MPs and people who follow politics, Sir Christopher crossed the line between being a robust opponent of excessive legislation and the thoughtless sabotage of necessary measures. The first was when he objected to the proposal to ban "Upskirt" photographs (subsequently taken over and found time by the government, and now expected to receive Royal Assent and become law on Tuesday 12th February), the second was last November when he previously objection to an earlier attempt to give a second reading to the same FGM bill to which he objected today.
As a small-government supporter myself, it has until today been my opinion that the rules of the House of Commons which give individual MPs significant blocking powers making it harder to get legislation through parliament quickly, and often stopping the bill concerned unless the government is willing to set aside time for it, has done more good than harm.
We already have far too much legislation in this country: new laws should not be that easy to pass and should be properly scrutinised. I thought until today that the ability of a single MP to insist that a bill could only proceed with a proper debate had been of benefit in reducing the propensity of parliament to pass laws which sound good but were not properly thought through.
However, Sir Christopher Chope demonstrated today that those rules can also be used to enable a single individual MP to block or put significant roadblocks in the way of measures which are properly thought through and have massive support for good reason.
If he had not shouted "object" the bill would still have been subject to scrutiny at Committee Stage, Report state and Third Reading.
I hope the government will now find time for the bill or bring its own similar measure forward, as it did with the Upskirting bill which is about to become law.
But it is also time to review parliamentary procedures and the extent to which it should be possible for lone mavericks to derail legislation.
He changed my mind about parliamentary procedures by shouting the word "Object" and thereby blocking the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill from proceeding at second reading.
The bill was a one-line amendment to the Children's Act which would add a child being thought to be at risk of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) to the legal grounds on which a Family Court can take action, up to and including a care order, to protect a child.
This bill had been proposed by a crossbench peer and had almost universal cross-party support including from the government. Home secretary Sajid Javid's responded on twitter to Sir Christopher's action by saying that he was
"Very disappointed by this. FGM is child abuse. I am determined to stamp out this despicable and medieval practice. We will do all we can protect girls at risk."
There has been for some decades a group of MPs, generally robust opponents of "big government," who take a view that parliament should not lightly pass lots of laws and who have regularly objected to large numbers of Private Members Bills in the manner which Chris Chope - who is a long-standing member of that group - did today, and thereby stopped those bills from becoming law.
However, today was the third time when, in the view of many MPs and people who follow politics, Sir Christopher crossed the line between being a robust opponent of excessive legislation and the thoughtless sabotage of necessary measures. The first was when he objected to the proposal to ban "Upskirt" photographs (subsequently taken over and found time by the government, and now expected to receive Royal Assent and become law on Tuesday 12th February), the second was last November when he previously objection to an earlier attempt to give a second reading to the same FGM bill to which he objected today.
As a small-government supporter myself, it has until today been my opinion that the rules of the House of Commons which give individual MPs significant blocking powers making it harder to get legislation through parliament quickly, and often stopping the bill concerned unless the government is willing to set aside time for it, has done more good than harm.
We already have far too much legislation in this country: new laws should not be that easy to pass and should be properly scrutinised. I thought until today that the ability of a single MP to insist that a bill could only proceed with a proper debate had been of benefit in reducing the propensity of parliament to pass laws which sound good but were not properly thought through.
However, Sir Christopher Chope demonstrated today that those rules can also be used to enable a single individual MP to block or put significant roadblocks in the way of measures which are properly thought through and have massive support for good reason.
If he had not shouted "object" the bill would still have been subject to scrutiny at Committee Stage, Report state and Third Reading.
I hope the government will now find time for the bill or bring its own similar measure forward, as it did with the Upskirting bill which is about to become law.
But it is also time to review parliamentary procedures and the extent to which it should be possible for lone mavericks to derail legislation.
Comments