Memorandum by the National Federation
of Women's Institutes (NFWI)
In response to your call for evidence, we have
put together some comments responding to the first section of
your call for evidence as they directly relate to the experience
of the WI members who participated in the scheme.
WI members found the meetings very informative
in terms of shining light onto how the system works. They also
found it enjoyable to have direct contact with peers—very
much humanising the system.
Members particularly welcomed talks from members
of the House of Lords as they were significantly less party political
than anything that they would expect from MPs. It is important
that this process is about familiarising people with the political
system and not pushing party policies.
The regional element added a lot as it gave
members the impression that those in power were coming to them.
It is important that this remains more an outreach programme than
being based in Westminster.
The service could be expanded by offering participants
at the regional sessions the opportunity to spend a day shadowing
peers in their work. Those who attended the sessions would also
benefit if there was a continuing dialogue with the Peer who had
visited them. This could be easily done via written updates of
their work at regular (say six month) intervals. The participants
would then have an opportunity to respond with further questions
about their work in the Lords.
At the moment, there are insufficient routes
for the public to make their views known to members of the House
of Lords as they do not have a constituency function which connects
them to the public. It is also a mistake to think that providing
opportunities to send questions via websites will reach everyone—as
a lot of people who are interested in the political system are
not web-enabled. The key to any interaction is that it should
ideally be in person and provide a forum for a continuing dialogue.
11 June 2009
| 
