Memorandum submitted by Jo Swinson MP
INTRODUCTION
I thoroughly welcome the Committee's formation
and trust that it will approach the issues outlined with a genuine
spirit of reform. Such a spirit is something which I find sadly
too often lacking in the House of Commons, where tradition and
the status quo are often not questioned. My ideas mainly relate
to how we can engage the public much more with Parliament, though
I will also briefly address the other issues in the inquiry.
APPOINTMENT OF
MEMBERS AND
CHAIRMEN OF
SELECT COMMITTEES
In keeping with a democratic institution, these
positions should be elected by MPs, by secret ballot to avoid
cajoling by party whips. Procedures should allow for committee
membership broadly reflecting the balance of political representation
in the House.
APPOINTMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AND
DEPUTY CHAIRMEN
OF WAYS
AND MEANS
The success of the recent election for the Speakership
makes an excellent case for these positions to be elected in a
similar way. The hustings process in particular enabled MPs to
challenge candidates on how they would perform the role of Speaker,
making a more informed judgement.
SCHEDULING BUSINESS
IN THE
HOUSE
Many MPs have long argued for a business committee
to schedule parliamentary business, such as exists in Holyrood
and in many other Parliaments around the world, and I share this
view. This should be drawn from all parties, and while recognising
Government requirements for time for its legislative programme,
it should be independent of Government. Provisional business should
be published at least a month in advance: the current practice
of finding out what will be discussed only a week or two in advance
makes it incredibly difficult for MPs to plan their time. In reality,
the Government does plan business further ahead than two weeks,
but does not publish its plans. Other large organisations do not
operate with such secrecy about future timetabling, and there
is no need for the House to do so. Of course MPs will understand
that provisional business can be subject to change due to unforeseen
circumstances.
ENABLING THE
PUBLIC TO
INITIATE DEBATES
AND PROCEEDINGS
IN THE
HOUSE
Petitions
I understand the Procedure Committee has looked
at the current practice of petitions, and compared examples from
elsewhere such as the Scottish Parliament where petitions can
be submitted online and a committee discusses petitions presented.
Such ideas could be developed further so that the public could
influence debates in the House. This could be done through the
petitions system, perhaps with a certain threshold of signatures
triggering a debate in the House or Westminster Hall.
Public choosing debates
Similarly, the most popular early day motions
could be voted on by the public and prioritised for debate. A
weekly debate on an issue or EDM chosen by the public could replace
one of the current adjournment debate slots in Westminster Hall,
or its sitting times could be extended by using it on Monday afternoon
or Thursday morning for such a purpose. The subject of the topical
debate is currently chosen by the Leader of the House, but instead
this could be voted on by the public from a shortlist agreed by
the business committee. There could also be a function for the
public to submit possible topics for these debates.
Online interactivity
Facilitating many of these new initiatives will
require the use of the Internet, though thought should also be
given to ensuring fair access for those who are not online, perhaps
by a House of Commons public engagement telephone line for voting
and suggesting topics. As time goes on, however, the proportion
of people using the Internet will grow until it is as ubiquitous
as using telephones. Parliament must move with the times, recognising
and embracing the opportunities this gives for opening up public
access to politics and meaningful two-way involvement. The House
should be looking at all aspects of its organisation and how they
need to change for the digital age. The education service is one
example where this has started already, with a wide range of online
tools to complement the face-to-face work they do, and reach out
to places geographically remote from Westminster. The Public Bill
Office is rather further behind. Changes need to be made to let
the public track bills online and the data must be presented in
a suitable electronic format to enable external organisations
to develop tools to help people get to grips with the legislation,
making it accessible, along the lines of the Free Our Bills campaign
(www.theyworkforyou.com/freeourbills
and EDM221). Similarly, while watching BBC Parliament for hours
on end may be an attractive prospect for a small minority of people,
the Internet has huge power to help the wider public see the bits
of Parliamentary proceedings that they are most interested in,
whether about their area or an issue close to their heart. The
BBC's new Democracy Live service is one example of how this can
work. Currently this power to engage is severely hampered by restrictions
on use of Parliamentary clips online (EDM 1104). On the BBC Democracy
Live site which will stream footage from the Scottish Parliament,
Welsh Assembly and European Parliament, Westminster alone will
not allow full functionality, for example letting users "share"
the clips they like. The Administration Committee has looked into
this issue and concluded that relaxing these restrictions is desirable—I
hope this Committee will endorse that view and encourage this
to be done speedily and completely. After all, footage of what
happens in Parliament should be seen as an electronic Hansard,
the property of the people who elect us.
October 2009
| 
