Citizens Initiative (Legislation) Bill

From Democracywiki

Central Lobby

Main Page | Index

---

On 30th April 2008 Douglas Carswellpresented a ten minute rule bill to the House of Commons on a Citizens Initiative .

Private Members Bills rarely become law but give backbenchers in both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to raise issues they feel strongly about.

What the Bill does

The Bill would permit members of the public to initiate legislation on things that mattered to them that would then be debated in Parliament.

It would use a Table Office Clerk who would determine the precise wording and rule frivolous or fantastic proposals out of order. Proposals would be out of order if, in the opinion of the Clerk and the Speaker, a similar proposal had been put forward within five years. Once the Table Office had approved a proposal, citizens would have 12 months to collect signatures.

The six proposals with the most signatures would qualify. This would mean that the proposals would compete against one another to ensure that they command the widest support.

The half dozen proposals with the most signatures would then be presented to Parliament during the state opening.

Every few months, the Commons would debate and vote on one of the people's Bills. MPs would not be under any obligation to vote for or against them.

Given that MPs have the final say, radical proposals would be subject to the necessary scrutiny.

Douglas Carswell believed that the Bill would help to:

“combat voter apathy. He pointed to empirical evidence from the US which shows that those states with the right of initiative have, on average, 5 per cent. higher turnouts than those states without”.

Restore the power of Parliament and increase accountability. The Bill would ensure that Westminster was made more directly accountable to those whom we are supposed to serve’ because of the “gaping gulf between the political classes in SW1 and the country beyond. He added, this House, under Governments of both parties, has grown less effective at holding those who wield Executive power to account”.

He concluded that there was a need for decentralising control, not of the economy but of politics and public services” because “in the era of Google, politics is not something that we, the people, must elect them, the politicians, to do on our behalf. Politics can belong to the people between elections, and voters can have a direct say over what MPs debate and vote on”.