Read it? Why would I bother to read it?

Thu, 03 May 2007 10:48:13 +0100

Terry writes some frightening stuff about the U.S. Congress:

There are many important issues but, frankly, none of them matter if we don't get some way of forcing politicians to actually read, understand, and acknowledge the full contents of bills for which they vote. At present, Congress camouflages bills with euphemistic, patriotic-sounding names that are completely irrelevant to the contents and impact. But the name is just about all most Congressmen know about a bill before they vote on it.

I'm not sure whether the system is any better here. Our bills have several "readings" as they go through parliament. I have always assumed this to mean that the bill (and later amendments to the bill) is read aloud but, now I think about it, perhaps I have been naive about that. And I suppose that, even were this to be true, there's nothing to stop an MP skipping the readings and turning up for the division.

I need to look into how the UK system actually works. Since my MP, Theresa May, is shadow commons leader she's probably a good place to start.

My current opinion is that MP's should be required to make a legally binding declaration that they have, personally, read and understood the full text of any bill or amendment before voting on it. With effective censures available for any MP discovered to have voted on a bill they did not read. This would need to be backed with some kind of commons oversight facility to turn up offenders.

As a side-effect this might also slow down the passage of legislation through parliament. Given the quality of legislation persued by this (and to be fair every other government I have lived through) I can only see that as being a good thing.

Curiouser and Curiouser! on parliament

Read it? Why would I bother to read it?