On Friday the MP for Hove, Peter Kyle failed in his attempt to introduce to the House of Commons the second reading of his private members Bill to enable 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote. The Bill has the catchy title of ‘Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill’. Whatever the rights and wrongs of such a Bill, what counts is that a debate takes place and MPs get a chance to vote. The Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing made it clear towards the end of the time available for the bill that insufficient time was available for it when she was asked a question by Lloyd Russell-Moyle:

LRM: When we tried to bring this matter to a vote with the last private Member’s Bill on the subject, you stated that you felt more time was need to debate this issue. Could you advise me on how much more time you think is needed to debate this issue before this House will get a vote on it?

EL: It is normal for the Second Reading debate on a Bill to have some three, four or five hours on the Floor of the House. This Bill has had only 28 minutes this afternoon, but the matter is not up to me. It is normal to have considerably longer than 28 minutes to deal with very important matters…..Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 26 October.

The reality is that whoever gets to choose how things take place in the House of Commons, there are some deeply concerning elements to what Ms Laing stated. The first of these is that the Commons began its first and only other debate on Friday straight after Friday Prayers beginning at 9.35am when Eleanor Laing was in the Chair. The business day on a Friday usually ends at 2.30 as it did that day. So this means that out of the total of five hours in the Chamber, Peter Kyles Bill was allowed 28 minutes and the previous Bill was allowed 4hrs and 24 minutes. The previous Bill was the ‘Parental bereavement (leave and pay) Bill’ and it was clearly an important matter, yet Eleanor Laing did not explain how long she felt that this Bill should have been debated for. Bearing in mind that she was chairing both debates, and at the start of the day she knew that the second debate would require at least 3 hours, it seems concerning that she failed to manage the time more effectively. It is just as concerning that she is unable to offer a much earlier time slot than in 5 months time. This failure was challenged by David Linden immediately before Lloyds question when the SNP Whip asked this question:

DL: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A number of Members have, unusually, come to the House on a Friday because they wish to vote in favour of this Bill, which the Government have blocked today by means of filibustering…..What methods are available to hon. Members to change the procedures of this House to allow us to have a vote and allow votes at 16 to become law, as is the will of the people?

EL: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The first part of it alleges negligence on the part of the Chair, so I cannot allow that to stand. No filibustering has taken place in this House today, because if such a thing had occurred, I would have stopped it. It is the case that we had one Bill that went through two stages and it took a long time to do that. Therefore, this Bill has had only half an hour’s consideration. That is perfectly proper under the rules of the House. His question about changing the procedures is a very good one that has merit, although I of course express no opinion as far as that is concerned. I suggest that he, and any other Members who feel as he does, should consult the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who might wish to consider the points that he has made.

Perhaps the most distressing element of this incoherent approach to the time management of the Bill is what Tracy Brabin, MP for expressed:

TB: my constituents Hannah and Hawa, who have travelled to witness this debate and say that they have their own power and articulacy and should be listened to? They say that young people like them are ambitious about politics and want to express their views.

As well as being the shadow minister for Education Tracy is the MP for Batley and Spen which means Hannah and Hawa had travelled 190 miles to watch a 28 minute debate and were then going to have to travel back another 190 miles. Hardly a positive experience for the two of these young people!