I am part of a generation which grew up with almost everyone owning an iconic piece of plastic: the ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ long playing record. The best known tracks on the album were Time and on the other side Money which together encapsulate the equation  by Benjamin Franklin ‘Time = Money’. According to the Bible the way we use our money (or time) indicates where our priorities lie. That is as true for society as for individuals. As electors we will expect our government to allocate financial resources towards areas such as defence or the welfare state or health and if the government gets it wrong (by our yardstick) we will wish to change government. However we do not always get the chance to measure these things as well as we should, in part because we are busy and in part because Governments can be economical with the facts.

A discussion in the House of Commons on 3rd November between Natascha Engel (Labour MP for NE Derbyshire) and David Heath (Lib Dem deputy leader of the House of Commons) has revealed that this coalition Government is not as committed to open government as they sometimes portray. The short exchange can be found at (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-11-03a.1088.5&s=speaker%3A11534#g1088.8). This at first seems to be simply a matter of timetabling. Something that is a bit boring and although necessary for the well running of Parliament, not something we should be too concerned about. However there is a great deal more at stake for all of us.

As I reported in July and again last month the Government in its proclaimed desire to involve all of us in the democratic processes has created a system where our ideas and concerns can be heard. All we have to do is to come up with an issue which 100,000 other people support and the Government will consider debating the matter. The process involved depends on Natascha and a committee she chairs called the Backbench Business Committee. They are able to decide which matters to discuss in the time allocated to them (some 30 days in each parliamentary year). If they wish to look at a matter identified in an e-petition from us, this can then move our concern from sitting on a website to being debated in Parliament. In recent weeks this has happened several times and indeed the recent debate on European membership was one of these issues (in that case the petition was an old-fashioned paper one).

The problem is that in order to hold a meaningful debate, speakers need to be prepared and indeed research needs to be carried out. Because Parliament is held in public it seems important that those who have raised these matters should also be able to see for themselves the debate and hear its outcome if they wish. However unlike Parliamentarians most of us cannot attend meetings in Central London at a days notice. The argument between Natascha and David has a direct bearing on this. A few hours before the European debate, Davids boss Sir George Young chose to change the arrangements so that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary could attend. Clearly this led to a ‘better’ debate. However if Natascha and her committee had a regular day for their debates, the PM and Cabinet could simply plan to attend on the days set aside without panicking when a discussion that they are concerned about takes place.

Another Pink Floyd Album is called Meddle (an earlier one than Dark Side of the Moon). It is time that the Government stopped meddling with the timetable to keep control and the power in their hands and give Natascha and her committee the priority they deserve. This will help improve the standing of Parliament amongst all of us and who knows might encourage a few more people to vote at the next election. Interestingly Pink Floyd also provided the soundtrack for a film called ‘The Committee’ in which the main character was decapitated in a rather gruesome manner. If the Government does not reconnect with the electorate the same fate might befall (metaphorically) Mr Heath and his colleagues.