Society Again Criticises Influence Of Caucus

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30630, 22 December 1964, Page 12

Society Again Criticises Influence Of Caucus

Replying to the defence of the Parliamentary caucus system made by the Prime Minister, Mr Holyoake, the president of the Constitutional Society, Sir Matthew Oram, said there was never any objection raised to the caucus system as such—what was objected to was the suggestion or inference by a Minister of the Crown that he could not accept any amendment to a Bill by the Opposition, even though he acknowledged the worth of the suggestion, because of a prior decision of the Government caucus on the question.

This principle, it had been claimed by the society, if carried to extremes, could strike at the very root of democratic parliamentary government It was no use, Sir Matthew Oram said, for the Prime Minister to say that “Parliamentary procedures were as democratic as those of any country with a similar system,” for the simple reason that there was no country with a Parliamentary system similar to ours. All other British democracies saw to it that they had a second chamber in which all legislation could be given another careful and exhaustive examination, free from the rigidity of party discipline and the exigencies of caucus rule.

“Indeed, it might be pertinent also to ask why, if

legislation received such an intensive scrutiny before it was passed, are we faced with the spate -of amendments which are necessary each session to correct some anomaly or deficiency in legislation only recently passed,” Sir Matthew Oram said.