The Government of England (Vol. I)Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
History
The Government of England (Vol. I)
Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
Great Britain -- Politics and government
Within their limits the utility of the standing committees in
legislation cannot be doubted. On the average about one seventh of the
public bills enacted year by year have passed through their hands, and
the proportion has shown a slight tendency to increase.[271:3] Moreover,
the pressure for time in the House of Commons has become so great that a
bill has a better chance of getting through if referred to a standing
committee than if it has to undergo the ordeal of a long debate in
Committee of the Whole. Every year the government is obliged by lack of
time to drop something like one third of the bills it has introduced,
but those of its bills that are referred to the standing committees
rarely fail to be enacted. In the case of bills brought in by private
members the contrast is even more striking; for while scarcely one tenth
of all such bills become law, more than one half of those among them
fortunate enough to reach a standing committee are enacted.[271:4] In
fact these committees furnish by far the best chance of passing private
members' bills through the House of Commons.[272:1]
[Sidenote: Standing Committee for Scotland.]
When the two great committees were revived in 1888, motions were made to
create others to consider bills relating to Scotland and Wales. The
motions were all rejected at the time; but in 1894 the Liberal
government took the matter up in the case of Scotland, and in that year
and the next carried resolutions establishing such a committee for the
session. It consisted of all the members for Scotch constituencies,
seventy-two in number, and of fifteen or twenty others appointed by the
committee of selection. On each occasion the plan was vigorously
opposed,[272:2] the chief objections being; that it tended toward
legislative dismemberment of the United Kingdom; that such a committee
would not, like the other standing committees, reflect fairly the
proportion of the parties in the House, because two thirds of the Scotch
members were Liberals;[272:3] and that the bills referred to it would
not be exclusively of a non-contentious nature. When the Conservatives
came to power they quietly dropped this committee. Even had they felt no
other reason for doing so, it would, no doubt, have been enough that, in
spite of considerable losses at the general election of 1895, the
Liberals were still in a majority among the Scotch members. The creation
of such a body illustrates, however, the exceptional position of
Scotland in the British Parliament; and any one who has followed a
debate on an ordinary Scotch bill, and observed how largely it is
confined to Scotch members, will realise that practically the resolution
of 1894 did little more than sanction formally by means of a standing
committee the kind of discussion that habitually takes place in the
Committee of the Whole.
[Sidenote: The Four Standing Committees of 1907.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account