Yes, that would be an alternative to the method that I propose. Amendment 1 would introduce an affirmative procedure, for two reasons that have already been discussed: first, because the Government are in a much better position to know what they have done; and secondly, because that would guarantee a vote—not a debate, but a vote.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Ponsonby rule was developed at a time when the Government did not have control over the agenda of the House every day. I suspect that they had control over three days out of the five in the week. Earlier, they had control over only two. I suspect that they could not have prevented a private Member's notice to disapprove of a treaty from being brought forward. We are in an entirely different situation now with regard to what the House can do about a treaty that the Government simply show they intend to ratify without yet having done so.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c201-2 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 09:56:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617414
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617414
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617414