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.

Comments

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. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…