SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum - View Single Post - Child Pillions

northwind · 11-03-05, 12:21 AM

Fair enough, but i think a bit of perspective's called for: This is a private member's bill, and look how far it's got towards being made law:

09.02.05
430 c1523-5
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading. (Bill 59 of 2004/05).
link

09.02.05
Bill 59 2004/05
Presented by Nigel Waterson.

In other words "I would like to present a bill" "OK then" "Here it is" and there it died.

What you have to understand before getting torn into these things is that any MP can raise a private member's bill on practically anything, and that the huge majority never get anywhere. In this case, it was a Ten Minute Rule bill- which as well as being a way to get an Bill rolling, is a very effective way for a relatively powerless backbencher to make a speech on a subject.

It is a good way to get a Bill tabled, and can occasionally lead to good bills being passed, or more importantly future bills being drafted. The advantage is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed; the downside is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed.

So what was he doing? Well, he almost certainly wasn't expecting to get the law passed, so the content of the Bill is relatively unimportant as long as it draws attention to his cause. But he did get to draw attention to a tragic death that probably could use more public attention. He was also able to publicise a forthcoming RoSPA campaign to require that young children wear properly designed kids helmets. And he gives a bit of PR to the BMF's excellent work- you'll notice that he actually gives a lot of space to their objections. And he maybe lays the foundation for a more serious debate or Bill at a later date. Now the next bill on the subject doesn't have the problem of bein ght efirst bill on the subject, and this one, however doomed, might sit in people's memories.

Also, he can go back to his constituent and say look, I've raised it in the House, I've tabled a Bill... Your son's death could save others.

Reading it, and from what little I remember of the whole lawmaking process, I'm sure this was a bill designed never to be passed... It's got very obvious weaknesses and the speech contains all the ammunition needed to shoot it down. It's just a trojan horse for the speech.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...50209-10_head0
is interesting reading, it's the guy's justification for bringing the bill.

To be honest, I think he missed an opportunity... Some of what he had to say makes a lot of sense, it's just his Bill that's useless.

11-03-05, 12:21 AM	#25
northwind Moderator Mega Poster Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In the garage where I belong Posts: 17,083	Fair enough, but i think a bit of perspective's called for: This is a private member's bill, and look how far it's got towards being made law: 09.02.05 430 c1523-5 Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading. (Bill 59 of 2004/05). link 09.02.05 Bill 59 2004/05 Presented by Nigel Waterson. In other words "I would like to present a bill" "OK then" "Here it is" and there it died. What you have to understand before getting torn into these things is that any MP can raise a private member's bill on practically anything, and that the huge majority never get anywhere. In this case, it was a Ten Minute Rule bill- which as well as being a way to get an Bill rolling, is a very effective way for a relatively powerless backbencher to make a speech on a subject. It is a good way to get a Bill tabled, and can occasionally lead to good bills being passed, or more importantly future bills being drafted. The advantage is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed; the downside is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed. So what was he doing? Well, he almost certainly wasn't expecting to get the law passed, so the content of the Bill is relatively unimportant as long as it draws attention to his cause. But he did get to draw attention to a tragic death that probably could use more public attention. He was also able to publicise a forthcoming RoSPA campaign to require that young children wear properly designed kids helmets. And he gives a bit of PR to the BMF's excellent work- you'll notice that he actually gives a lot of space to their objections. And he maybe lays the foundation for a more serious debate or Bill at a later date. Now the next bill on the subject doesn't have the problem of bein ght efirst bill on the subject, and this one, however doomed, might sit in people's memories. Also, he can go back to his constituent and say look, I've raised it in the House, I've tabled a Bill... Your son's death could save others. Reading it, and from what little I remember of the whole lawmaking process, I'm sure this was a bill designed never to be passed... It's got very obvious weaknesses and the speech contains all the ammunition needed to shoot it down. It's just a trojan horse for the speech. http://www.publications.parliament.u...50209-10_head0 is interesting reading, it's the guy's justification for bringing the bill. To be honest, I think he missed an opportunity... Some of what he had to say makes a lot of sense, it's just his Bill that's useless. __________________ "We are the angry mob, we read the papers every day We like what we like, we hate what we hate But we're oh so easily swayed"