Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 844165,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/844165/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 82,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The question that would arise would be: If the decision once carried were to remain as a judgment and could not be questioned again, what was the wisdom behind permitting reversal? Erskine May points out that the flexibility of Parliament to create a window for reversing decisions already made was necessitated by the practical inconvenience of that rigid rule, especially where the House as a whole wished to change its opinion. With that rule, it proved too inhibitive for a legislative body that is confronted with the ever-changing problems of Government. Hence, a rule prohibiting reconsideration of a decided question had come to be interpreted very narrowly, so as not to prevent open rescission when it is decided that it is desirable. What is interesting to note from the United Kingdom’s experience is that even though the latitude to reverse a House decision was eventually granted, it was not in form of a blank cheque. In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, exercise of the power of rescission has been restrictively invoked. Indeed, the power of rescission has been exercised only in the case of a resolution resulting from a substantive Motion and, even then, sparingly. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}