Three simple ways to reform EDMs, without harming the fibreglass sheep

Dizzy Thinks has been on the case again about the costs run by Early Day Motions in Parliament. As he delicately puts it:

Yes, we really do have to spend £150K alone on the salary, pension and NI contributions for the poor sods that have to sort out the latest self-congratulatory bollocks that our MPs want to spout off fruitlessly about.

The combination of cost and triviality of many EDMs has caused some people to call for their abolition. I think this is going too far, as some EDMs do provide a useful mechanism, as a focus for external campaign groups, to get MPs to put their views on the public record and to show the volume of support on an issue.

Many do not, so here are three simple suggestions for reforming EDMs.

First, as Dizzy and others have pointed out, there is really no need to print the EDMs on paper. An electronic version achieves all the benefits just as well (and in fact pretty much all that is needed already exists at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/). So abolish the paper versions.

A sheep. Photo credit: David Masters on FlickrSecond, a large number of EDMs get only a trivial number of signatures. In the 2009-10 Parliamentary session, for example, of the 1,315 EDMs and amendments, 383 (29%) got 20 signatures or fewer; 205 of those even received only 10 signatures or fewer.

So a simple introduction of a minimum number of initial signatories would cut out a huge amount of the trivial. Requiring signatures from members of at least two parties (or independents) would also focus minds on using EDMs for something other than a simple extension of usual party hostilities.

And third? Have a quiet word with Robert Halfon, the champion of the unsuported EDM. In the current Parliamentary session, the newly elected Conservative MP for Harlow, has managed an impressive 10 of the 33 EDMs or amendments which have only been signed by one MP so far.

His EDM about fibreglass sheep in Harlow, however, is not one of those. Not only has it won four signatures, they cross party lines too. So lovers of Parliamentary action on fibreglass sheep can rest easy. They would be safe from this reforming axe. You can only have so much reform you know.

Thanks to Dizzy for the tip on how to get the data about number of signatures per EDM.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Parliament.
Advert

One Comment

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    A clear, credible, principled strategy from the Yorkists! Makes a welcome change. Sadly, followed by twenty below-the-line posts, providing nearly twenty ve...
  • Simon McGrath
    so we get a permanant increase in costs for these subsidies based on ( alleged ) windfall profits. Its another big increase in spending -how is it to be paid ...
  • Peter Davies
    @Kira CollinsThat assumes we want to help people more with their energy bills than with all the other bills they may be struggling with. There is no reason why ...
  • Rob Heale
    Agree that we need to focus on strategy and have clearer messaging:- 1. We MUST prioritise membership recruitment in all we do, including PPB's, most leaflets...
  • Kira Collins
    Disappointed. The most obvious means of reducing energy bills is to remove VAT. Relatively straightforward to do and does not adversely impact on the attractive...