---

Democratic Processes

19. Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab): What steps the Government are taking to ensure wider participation in the democratic process. [175299]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government have taken several significant steps to encourage wider participation in the democratic process: for example, introducing citizen education in schools; combining this year's local and European elections on the same day; making voter registration easier; and piloting all-postal voting.

Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I applaud the measures that have been taken. Does he agree that improving participation in the democratic process is a matter not merely of making voting easier but of engaging people and enthusing them from an early age? What steps is the Department taking, with other Departments, to engage people in the political process, especially young people?

Mr. Leslie: The work of the Department for Education and Skills, with our Department, has proved particularly successful—not least because citizenship education has been part of the national curriculum for the past two years, as a compulsory subject for 11 to 14-year-olds, which is intended to improve political literacy and social responsibility, and awareness of wider community issues and how decisions are made locally and nationally. That is a major step forward, which over time will produce greater awareness and participation among all our citizens.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Does the Minister accept that, for the first time for a very long time, many of my constituents will be enfranchised to vote in the local elections on 10 June? Many of my constituents leave home before 8 o'clock and often do not get back until after 9 o'clock. Why on earth cannot polling stations in local elections always open at 7 am and close at 10 pm? If that is good enough for European elections and elections to the House, surely it is good enough for local elections. Would we not then have greater participation?

Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. There is a strong case to standardise opening hours for polling stations—something that the
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1436
 
Electoral Commission has recommended. We do not have a legislative vehicle at present for that, but I will certainly bear in mind the strong case that he makes.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I have not met many hon. Members who are in favour of compulsory voting, but has the Minister considered rewarding people who vote, perhaps by tweaking their tax code or by giving a modest increase in benefits if they are benefit recipients?

Mr. Leslie: Perhaps the greatest reward that we can give to our electors is a Labour Government, providing quality services to a consistently high standard. I hope that that reward will continue long into the future.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): One of the merits of our traditional system was its simplicity—people would just put a cross on the ballot paper and the person with the most votes won. The trouble is that the system has become very complicated, which is probably turning people away. Let us just consider London on 10 June: people can vote for the London Mayor, under a supplementary vote system, where they express a first and second preference; they can vote for the London assembly, with an additional member system, by voting for a candidate in an additional, top-up party list; and they can vote for the European Parliament with a closed party list. So they have five votes with three completely different systems—without the added complication of whether to vote in person or by post. Surely that growing complication, with a multiplicity of voting systems and methods, is causing a lot of disapproval and misunderstanding. Is it any wonder that people say, "Stuff the whole thing—we're not going to bother to participate at all."?

Mr. Leslie: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about the d'Hondt mechanism for counting results, but he did not get round to that one. I recognise the likelihood that some areas will have several different ballot papers in June's elections, but I would caution his underestimating of the electorate's intelligence and their ability to cope with such things. Most people can manage to understand that they have a ballot paper, that they cast their vote and that they see the results when those ballots are counted. That is the nature of our democracy at present.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend—sorry, hon. Friend; I have promoted him. [Hon. Members: "In time."] Does he agree that we might achieve greater enthusiasm for the democratic process if the editors and owners of certain tabloids refrained from frequently commenting unfairly on hon. Members?

Mr. Leslie: I have found that most newspapers tend to be very fair and reasonable with politicians, and I have great relations with many of them, but my hon. Friend has concerns about certain of the red-top tabloids. All I can say is that the House needs to keep a close eye on the truth in matters that relate to hon. Members.
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1437
 

Lay Magistracy (East Anglia)

20. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy in East Anglia to discuss the workings of the local justice system. [175300]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Although I have no current plans to meet representatives of the lay magistracy in East Anglia, I am, of course, ready to do so if that would prove useful.

Mr. Bellingham : It may well prove useful. Is the Minister aware that most of the lay magistrates whom I have met feel very let down by the Government? They feel undervalued, unwanted and unappreciated and they are concerned about the number of court closures. What would he say to lay magistrates today to boost their morale and improve their standing? In addition, will he confirm that there will be no more small court closures?

Mr. Leslie: On the latter point, there have been no court closures this year, in contrast to the closure of 21 magistrates courts in the last year of the Conservative Administration. I believe that the best way to secure high morale among magistrates is to reiterate how much we, on both sides of the House, value them. They are volunteers who provide a good, solid and continuous service in the administration of justice, and I, for one, am very grateful for the work that magistrates do.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Standing Committees

30. Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): To ask the Leader of the House if he will submit plans to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to simplify papers for standing committees. [175289]

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I am aware that some Members find the form and number of Standing Committee papers unhelpful. The Modernisation Committee is considering the accessibility of the House's publications in its current inquiry on Parliament's engagement with the public, which includes the form of the papers provided for members of Standing Committees.

Dr. Whitehead : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in many ways, the present arrangements for Committee papers resemble the form-guide sketch from the Marx brothers' "A Day at the Races", in that one needs four documents—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the list of amendments tabled and the Chairman's selection of amendments—to understand what is going on? Does he have any proposals on methods whereby all those documents could be combined, for perusal by both the public and Committee members?
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1438
 

Mr. Hain: The Procedure Committee is also considering the matter. I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Modernisation Committee has held a number of evidence sessions with members of the public in which that point has been repeated, especially by visitors who are attending a Standing Committee for the first time. We need to address the issue, but pulling the various papers—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the amendment paper, the selection list, the background papers, Library notes, and so on—into one document would be difficult and perhaps costly. None the less, simplifying the process should be a common objective.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): May I suggest one way of improving papers for Standing Committees—a sort of modernisation, perhaps even a tidying-up exercise? [Hon. Members: "No!"] One or two of my hon. Friends say no, but should not the Opposition be allowed to publish explanatory notes with key amendments on the Committee amendment paper?

Mr. Hain: That is taking modernisation very far indeed. Were the hon. Gentleman ever to find himself in government—which is unlikely, despite his being a nice fellow—he might take a rather different view.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence taken so far by the Modernisation Committee makes it clear that Standing Committees are the least understood part of our proceedings? It is evident to me as a member of the Chairmen's Panel that Members often do not understand how amendments are selected and how their amendments will be voted on if they choose to press them to a vote.

Mr. Hain: Of course, selection of amendments is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but my hon. Friend underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that the procedure in Standing Committees is baffling to visitors. On the other hand, members of Standing Committees deal with highly complex aspects of Bills that will become law, and such matters have to be dealt with seriously and technically in order to conform to the legislative requirements. We have to get the balance right, but I am sure that it has to be struck in favour of greater clarity and openness and a more welcoming atmosphere for visitors to the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Does the Leader of the House accept that the Modernisation Committee has evidence that not just Members and visitors but people with a direct interest in the legislation who may be affected by the outcome find the whole procedure unintelligible? Does he accept that we need to look seriously, for example, at the timing of advance notice of issues that are coming up in Standing Committee? We must, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, look hard at the way in which Select Committees have improved their procedures and made themselves much more intelligible to everybody with an interest in those matters.
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1439
 

Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed. Select Committees have done an admirable job in that respect. As for the serious issue of people knowing what is coming up, I assume that that is a vote for programming, which enables us to do that. For the interested groups to which, I assume, the hon. Gentleman was referring indirectly, and which may have a direct stake in legislation, knowing what day an issue will be discussed in Committee and at what time is a tremendous benefit of programming. The hon. Gentleman's wider argument, however, is generally very welcome.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

---