Those are two good points.
In terms of the process going forward, I do recommend...because as the U.K. recognized, this is a fairly large—they said “radical”—innovation in their usual practices. They were very cautious with it. They had a select committee look entirely just at putting that set of initial proposals together, which they then got out to all MPs for a period of months over Christmas break and into the following year, before they came back with a second report. That formed the basis of the debate that went into the House. Then they started it on an experimental basis for a year.
When they first came out with that first set of proposals, they weren't even at that point suggesting a pilot project. They just said, here's what we're thinking, and we really want to see what you think of this proposal. I think the input they had back from MPs went into report two, and that eventually formed the basis of the Standing Orders.
On the second point, the whole culture of backbench business in the U.K. is different and has evolved differently. It would not be my recommendation to go down that road. It might be something for another look, maybe chapter two for the modernization committee, if we were to create such a thing.
It certainly has merit. I think there would be aspects of the program that you could put in a second chamber that would improve opportunities for backbench members to get on record matters that are relevant to their constituents. I would want to get a separate understanding of just how backbench business and that committee operates in the U.K. That is fascinating, I grant you, but I think that would be something for a separate look.