Skip to main content

Eric Sallies Forth

Friday was another private members bill day. I had turned up for two bills, but only one got through second reading.

The reason for this was Eric Forth. I am not quite sure what he gets out of the process, but he turns up to filibuster the private members bills and as a consequence it becomes harder to get one through the process.

A bill has to have 2 hours debate after which, with the agreement of the (Deputy) Speaker it can be moved that "the motion be now put". For that to pass as a division at least 100 MPs need to vote aye. (That is how Clare Short's bill failed, because only 91 MPs voted aye).

Eric Forth managed to speak for an hour on the Microgeneration Bill before I came into the chamber. There was a bit of the "usual channels" going on about when he may be forced to end. At the end of it he accepted that if he didn't stop talking at 1.30 he would be forced to stop.

Then the second reading passed without a division. The process of a division has two interesting steps. The first is that the (Deputy) Speaker askes for people to say "aye" or "no" and if there are people saying "aye" and people saying "no" then (s)he calls a division. Then they appoint tellers and there is a second requirement for people to say both "aye" and "no". It is after that point that we are committed to a division.

Generally people avoid divisions because they are a nuisance. They require all the MPs to troop through the lobbies. That means dropping whatever they are doing and rushing to the lobbies. First divisions have 8 mins notice and later ones 6. For people with offices some distance away that is quite difficult.

Some debates have 3 hour periods during which it is guaranteed that there won't be any divisions. That allows MPs to wander off to meetings off the "parliamentary estate" or beyond the division bell range.

The division bells themselves are quite interesting as they are based upon traditional solenoids.

The Speaker and Deputy Speakers put some effort into trying to make sure that debates are actually debates and that MPs listen to what other MPs have said and respond to the debate rather than just reading out set speeches.

That means that to speak you need to stay in the chamber for all of the debate until you speak then 2 speeches afterwards and return for the summing up.

Although MPs generally do not respond to the debate it is a good idea to try to work this way. To be fair to Eric Forth he does manage to spend quite a bit of time banging on about each private members bill in a vaguely coherent manner even though what he does is basically a real nuisance. What he did yesterday was to prevent the second bill from getting a second reading.

Although I did not actually vote yesterday I did need to be there. If Eric Forth had thought that there were not 100 Mps supporting the proposal then he would not have ended his speech and a closure would have had to be moved.

Like much of practical politics, if it is clear which way things are going to go then there is less resistance.


Richard Allen said…
I think that Eric Forth has both a sadistic streak and a love of strange parliamentary procedures. I would imagine it can be quite annoying if you are on the opposite side.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…