AN SNP MP has slammed a decision to exclude the party from a committee to modernise Westminster.
On Thursday, the government proposed a motion to establish a modernisation committee to consider reforms to Commons procedures, standards and working practices.
Despite smaller parties taking up over 50 seats in the chamber, the committee's 14 proposed seats will only be distributed among the three largest parties.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Why I've decided to leave frontline politics
SNP MP Kirsty Blackman proposed an amendment to the motion that would require one member from each party to be represented on the committee, which went unselected by the Speaker.
During the debate, Blackman said: “Given the breakdown that committees are likely to fall in, does [Commons leader Lucy Powell] understand that only three parties will be represented on that committee?
"And would it be possible to flex it slightly and still keep it relatively small, but have voices from more than just three parties?”
Powell replied that the make up “is an unfortunate case of the mathematics of how these things are considered across all select committees”.
However, she sought to assure Blackman that she would “commit to there being regular and meaningful engagement with any and all parties represented in this house.”
READ MORE: Stephen Flynn demands clarity from UK Government on carbon capture project
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson intervened to say: “This for me seems a little bit unfair.
“We have a political party represented in this House that got over four million votes at the last election and we will have no representation whatsoever on the committees."
Powell responded: “The house is considered in terms of its members not in terms of the popular vote, and that is a consequence of those formulas which are long standing and have brought about effective representation on many select committees.”
The DUP's Jim Shannon weighed in, agreeing with the points raised by the SNP and Reform UK MPs.
The MP for Strangford said that when it comes to “more parochial” issues such as the Northern Ireland or Scottish affairs committee there should be more space for smaller parties.
He added that he was “ever mindful” of the right of the Government to have a majority.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel