Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

It was government whip John Randall who administered the coup de grace to the bill to reform MPs' expenses with a murmured "object" at 2.30pm on Friday. So, despite my conspiracy theories, Tory backbencher Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill was not waved through to committee consideration without any debate. His line is that his bill is intended to stimulate discussion in Westminster and help trigger reform of the current system - which almost all MPs loath with a passion.

An alternative path for the bill might be provided via the - they could allocate Commons time for a second reading debate, but may be loath to set a precedent for giving time to private members bills, and in particular for a bill on this particular subject. Mr Afriyie could try for a ten-minute rule bill or find some other cunning manoeuvre - but his options look rather thinner today.

Elsewhere on Friday, it looks as if the "new politics" has yet to enter the strange world of private members' bills. was talked out by a band of determined Tory backbenchers - and now stands little chance of rising from the dead. For a private members' bill to be voted on, debate must either come to a natural end, in the sense that no-one else has anything left to say, or be shut down by a so-called "closure motion".

Despite the Labour front bench's refusal to support the bill, 87 backbenchers were present to support a closure, which would have allowed the Commons to vote on whether or not to give the bill a second reading - but 100 are needed to validate such a vote. So the attempt to end the debate was lost, and a kind of zombie debate, designed purely to stop proceedings petering out and allowing a vote by default, continued for an hour.

(see below) demonstrated a talent for droning remorselessly on, and invoked Cicero and Palmerston as his colleagues chortled at his erudition. Labour's eventually became irritated enough to suggest that Mr Rees-Mogg's only shop floor experience had been at Fortnum and Mason's - but the target of his ire was unruffled.

There were occasional glimpses of a rather important debate about whether current laws on the conduct of strike ballots were unreasonably restrictive - and given the level of Labour backbench support for the bill, it may well be raised again - but this was mostly an exercise in deliberate time-wasting.

Undemocratic? An abuse of process? Maybe. But if an issue is that important, shouldn't it be possible to attract 100 MPs to close the debate? The process may be pretty inglorious, but there is a certain rough and ready logic behind the working of the rules.

And it will be interesting to see if something similar happens on the next private members' Friday - when Labour's is first up, with his Sustainable Livestock Bill.

Will disciples of the , who regarded most private members' bills as flabby and vexatious, strike again?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?