Labour MPs Martin Salter and Graham Allen, both members of the Wright Committee on Parliamentary Reform have attacked “procedural manoeuvring” by the Government’s business managers and have publicly challenged the Prime Minister to demonstrate that he is serious about delivering the Parliamentary reform promised in his Constitutional Statement on 10^th June last year and reiterated in Tuesday’s speech to the IPPR in which he said:-

“And alongside our moves to bring democracy to the second chamber, we will also bring new politics to the primary seat of power in the land, the House of Commons.”

Of the Wright Committee proposals Gordon Brown said:-

“These reforms will increase the ability and the legitimacy of parliament to hold the government to account - as I believe that the proper role of parliament is, indeed, to scrutinise the executive and it should be given all the necessary tools to do so.”

Members of all parties have raised objections to the proposed method by which the Wright Committee reforms will be considered by the Commons. Instead of a debate on 23^rd February on an amendable Motion followed by a series of votes, the Government have chosen a procedural device which will allow a single objection to block any changes. The votes would then have to take place on another day and the Government have failed to provide time for this to occur before the general election.

Graham Allen MP said:-

“Rather than invent procedural problems to stop effective decision making by Parliament on reform, it is quite simple for Government to put matters before the House for decision. I have tabled such Motions on the Order Paper to demonstrate how easy this would be. Government merely has to amend them to their taste and the House will be able to take a decision. The Prime Minister must will the means as well as the ends.”

Martin Salter added:-

“I very much welcome the recent open letter to the Leader of the House from the Hansard Society and a coalition of six other organisations involved in Parliamentary and constitutional affairs. They rightly make the point that every single one of the major parliamentary reforms introduced by this government since 1997 were subject to an amendable and debatable motion followed by a series of votes. Some of these proposals were highly contentious such as the programming of Bills or changes to sitting hours but no procedures were adopted to allow a single objection to disrupt or delay their implementation. Why then are the Wright Committee proposals to be treated in a wholly different manner? It is simply bizarre to allow opponents of reform an effective veto over something both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have indicated that they support.”

He continued:-

“I cannot believe there is a single, intelligent member of this of all Parliaments, that thinks it’s a good idea to face the electorate accused of being a “roadblock to reform”. It is time for Gordon Brown to show that he too is serious about achievable reforms which are not only necessary but which have widespread support across the whole House.”