The ‘awkward squad’ of MPS are doing their job

Sir Christopher Chope didn’t object to the content of the upskirting Bill but to its procedure

It’s time someone stood up for the Tory MPS who talk out private members’ Bills, AKA “the awkward squad”. They are unpopular even within their own party, and Sir Christopher Chope – the member for Christchurch who shouted “object” at a Bill to ban perverts taking photos up women’s skirts, thus kicking it down the road – is presently the most hated man in Britain. But even if I don’t share the politics of these strict constitutionalists, they do defend an important principle. Parliament exists not just to pass laws but to scrutinise them, and filibustering can be a legitimate part of that process.

It might help to explain precisely what happened last Friday afternoon. That’s the day of the week when time is put aside to hear Bills introduced by MPS (as opposed to those sponsored by the Government) and as they’ve only got a few hours allotted, it’s imperative that the debate is speedy. If an MP doesn’t like a colleague’s Bill, all he or she has to do is talk at length until the time that can be spent on it expires: what we call filibustering. This technique has a long tradition in the US Congress, where Senator Strom Thurmond famously spoke for 24 hours and got around the “no leaving the room to pee” rule by placing a bucket just outside the chamber. That way he could urinate into it while keeping one foot inside the Senate.

Last Friday, a Bill on the use of force in mental health units was talked out. Come 2.30pm, the remaining Bills were read to ask if MPS were happy for them to move on to their next phase without debate or if they, too, should be discussed at the next scheduled Friday. When the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill was named, Sir Christopher gave the traditional cry of “Object”. Later he admitted that he didn’t know exactly what “upskirting” is. This might make his objection sound all the more appalling, but it implies he wasn’t motivated by misogyny but concern for procedure. Sir Christopher believes: a) no Bill should be nodded through a sparsely attended chamber; and b) if the Government supports a new law, as it does in this case, it should sponsor the legislation itself.

The way it was reported by some outlets, you’d imagine that when the Voyereurism (Offences) Bill was read, the awkward squad came riding in to the chamber on horses shouting: “We object in the name of the holy patriarchy!” In fact, MPS objected to 20 Bills that afternoon, covering everything from a ban on wild animals in circuses to the regulation of those pedicabs cycling around London. I personally hate rickshaws, but if you’re going to add to our already insane number of laws, you have to make a watertight case for legislation. Especially, as with upskirting, if your legislation leads to a prison sentence.

Of all the Bills that day, the upskirting one was probably the most sane: the law governing this foul offence needs updating. But other private members’ Bills are often vanity projects or ideas riddled with holes. A classic example was a proposal in 2015 to give free hospital parking to carers. This was filibustered by Philip Davies on the basis that hospitals can raise much-needed cash through parking charges, and if Parliament takes some of it away, how will they make up the shortfall? By raising everyone else’s charges? Bigger fines? Either way, the autonomy of the hospital would have been weakened by this law and Mr Davies made a strong case against it. Many voters disagreed, and the hostility he incurred was so great I’m surprised he didn’t have to enter a witness protection programme.

Maybe you think Mr Davies and Sir Christopher are just dinosaurs using procedure to block progress. Okay. If so: beat ’em at their own game. Any attempt to stymie a private members’ Bill can ultimately be defeated if, when it does come up for debate, there are 100 MPS in the chamber willing to vote to end a filibuster. If you can’t get 100 MPS to hang around on a Friday afternoon (which, admittedly, may mean missing constituency surgeries) and back your law, then it clearly doesn’t command the broad enthusiasm in the House necessary for it to go the distance.

Government by parliamentary consensus is a sound notion. It’s how Brexit is playing out. The more fiddly the process, the more awkward the Tory rebels are, the more I think we are going about this in an appropriately British way. Yes, the Lords is a mess because it’s been stuffed with cronies. But the tight arithmetic of the Commons is the fault of Theresa May not our constitution (she botched an election) and Dominic Grieve’s gang of anti-brexit MPS are doing what they feel they were elected for, what Mrs May’s slim control of the Commons lets them do, and what the system encourages: apply scrutiny.

Brexit will eventually pass, as will the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill now that Mrs May says she’ll do what she should have done from the start and introduce it in government time. Perhaps this is also the moment to reform the private members’ Bill system (it could be moved to a better-attended day). Either way, no law, however sensible, should escape a hard slog, and MPS must be free to act as their individual conscience dictates.