Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

This is astounding. My party supports proportional representation. I am pretty certain the hon. Gentleman does not. We operate under the electoral system designed for this place, and it is called first past the post. We won 56 of 59 seats in Scotland, and we are the third party of the UK, in terms of membership of the House and party membership across the UK.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Is this not a preposterous argument, given that all Divisions in the House are based on membership of the House, not the vote in the country? Otherwise, Committee membership could be very different. The Conservative party got a lot less than 50% of the vote in the UK, yet has the majority of members on the Committee.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot understand it. We are allowed on practically every institution and Committee of the House, and we are prepared to serve assiduously on them. We want to be part of this Committee. We have something to contribute. Why are we being excluded? Why is the House happy with our exclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That is such a good point, and I am coming on to it. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that we do not take places in the House of Lords. If it is necessary to be an elected Lord to get on an important Committee of this House, where does that leave democracy in this country? How can people who have no democratic mandate—they have been elected by absolutely nobody—take precedence over elected Members of this House? We are being placed in a ridiculous and absurd situation. If the only way to get on the Committee is to take places in an unelected House of Lords, most people would regard that as an absurd situation.

[Mike Weir]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is actually worse than that? Only this week, it appears that the Government have been threatening to suspend the House of Lords because it did not want to accept what the Government wanted to do with tax credits. Now, however, the other place is more important than us when it comes to membership of this important Committee.

[Dr Coffey]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise that SNP Members are having a debate, but we are supposed to be discussing Members from the House of Commons who are going to sit on this Committee. Membership of the House of Lords is a different matter and one for the other end of the corridor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That is actually quite a reasonable suggestion from the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, studies these issues very closely and carefully. Why do we not change the Standing Orders? Will someone tell me why we cannot do that? Why is the third party in the United Kingdom excluded because of a binding commitment to the Standing Orders of the House? Let us change them. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. If he tables a motion, he will have the support of members of the Scottish National party.

[Mike Weir]

May I point out that we shall debate a proposal to change the Standing Orders tomorrow—because of another thing that the Government wish to do—and that that was proposed even before it was referred to the Procedure Committee? It can be done: we can change Standing Orders.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We could change the Standing Orders at any time, and we shall be changing them tomorrow in order to diminish the rights of Scottish Members of Parliament. Within 24 hours, we shall find that our rights in the House have been diminished to second class—and we are being denied a place on the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I am sure that the people of Scotland are observing what is happening down here, and the way in which Scottish Members of Parliament are being treated in this House. I am sure that they are reaching their own conclusions about what is being done to Scottish Members in this place. Just because we are the third party in the House and it is not the Liberals this time, it is apparently all right to exclude us—but it is not on, and I am pretty certain that the Scottish people are observing, very darkly, the way in which Scottish Members are being treated in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I hope that when the Joint Committee on Human Rights does finally meet it will consider the European convention on human rights, protocol 1, article 3, which states:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

Of course, the vast majority of legislators in this country—in this Parliament—are unelected; they are up the corridor in the House of Lords. It is therefore a complete disgrace and a total irony that the third largest party in this House is not to be represented on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One day, a Government of this country are going to find themselves in the High Court or the Supreme Court across the road with democratic citizens rightly challenging the fact that they are not allowed to vote for the largest number of legislators in this Parliament. It is a total and utter democratic outrage.

[Mike Weir]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is even worse than that because, again, this Government have suggested that they will appoint a huge number of new peers to make sure they get their legislation through?

[Patrick Grady]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We heard the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) making a point of order earlier in the day about precisely that matter: that the House of Lords might choose to undermine or vote against the current Government’s policy. I do not know whether it was him or someone else, but it was suggested that the solution to that, rather than abolishing the House of Lords or electing Members of the House of Lords and giving it a mandate, was simply to create yet more peers to outnumber us even more. I am sure the irony was not lost on those of us who were sitting in the Royal Gallery yesterday: the question of where elected mandates come from.

As my colleagues have stated, the human rights framework is at the core of the Scotland Act 1998 and it is fundamental to the new democracy that exists north of the border. Given that the Government seem determined to undermine the Human Rights Act here in this Parliament, it is even more concerning that we are not being given a voice on the Joint Committee—they are refusing to give a voice to the third party. We have a democratic right, as democratically elected Members of this House, and a duty to look out for the human rights of our constituents. Tomorrow, the Government are going to force through Standing Orders that will further undermine our rights, and it raises the question: where is this respect agenda? Where is the respect for the decision that the people of Scotland made last year when they said to stay in the UK, for now.

English Votes for English Laws

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady, but that merely demonstrates the indecent haste with which this whole enterprise has been cobbled together.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will also recall that in the previous list of Bills, it was discovered that some of them, as well as applying to Scotland, needed a legislative consent motion, yet they were still being put forward as England-only Bills.

[Patricia Gibson]

Again, that highlights the indecent haste involved in this proposal. The back-of-a-fag-packet calculation with which it has been presented to the House is an insult to Scotland and to every nation in this family of nations with devolved Parliaments. Who would decide what was an England-only or an England and Wales-only Bill? It seems, as we have heard, that ultimately the Speaker—in secret and with no accountability—will decide.

English Votes on English Laws

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have said that in 12 months’ time we will be open to listening to the views of Members. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that case when the moment arises. He is right about the views of his constituents. I still do not truly understand why two Opposition parties, which support devolution, do not think that it is fair to provide England with an element of increased control in that overall devolution package. It is incongruous and strange. For the Labour party, in particular, which represents a large number of English seats, it makes no sense. I look forward to seeing its Members argue their case on the doorsteps because I do not think that they will win.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I listened carefully when the Leader of the House said that there would be no changes in the House of Lords. He went on to say that if amendments were made that affected England only, there would be a veto by English MPs. What happens if the House of Lords decides to extend the extent of a Bill to bring in Scottish matters or to change things affecting Scotland? Will Scottish MPs get a veto over that?

[Chris Grayling]

A Lords amendment will be subject to the same certification process whether it is UK in its extent or English only in its extent, and the votes will take place accordingly.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to royalties received from works recorded prior to becoming a Member of this House, and on which I work zero hours. There is one recording not in the register: the record by MP4, the cross-party parliamentary group, which has made almost £1 million for charity in the past 10 years. I know you have a certain affection for the recordings of MP4, Mr Speaker, and we greatly appreciate that.

Here we go again. Just when we think that the Westminster establishment could not be held in lower esteem by the public, something comes along to disabuse us of that notion. It is all so familiar: a sting operation by the media using a fake company involving some of our senior Members of Parliament and the lure of access. Underpinning it all is the possibility of cash in the hands of those Members.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend talks about cash. Does he not find it strange—it seems strange to me—that it is so simple to entrap people in this place with the lure of cash? Members do not even take simple steps to find out if these people are genuine.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made that very same observation about an almost identical sting prior to the last election, when it was then Labour Cabinet members who were caught up in a rotten affair.

The public observe this House with something approaching bemused bewilderment, concluding that the Westminster Parliament exists as little more than a self-serving institution for its overpaid Members. This Parliament has never been held in such contempt. Never has there been such a profound alienation between those who are governed and those who occupy the corridors of power. There is a massive disconnect between this House and the people of Britain. All that has happened in the past week makes that disconnect even wider. People will observe the comments from Conservative Members with something approaching disbelief. We see that reflected in how the public respond to this House—of course we do. The two major establishment parties can barely get above 60% in the polls. The public are not prepared to accept this anymore.

Devolution and the Union

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I suppose it depends on how broad, far and deep is one’s horizon. [Interruption.] Let me pursue that a bit more, because I want to be clear about it. Today’s motion does not seek to ride roughshod over the vow. It calls for a review of Barnett without prejudice to what would follow. I do not see how anyone on any side of the debate could possibly refuse to countenance consideration of the impact of further financial devolution on the rest of the UK. That would have to entail a review of Barnett.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

There is almost a point of agreement here. In our proposals to the Smith review, we said:

“As part of any agreement, the Barnett Formula should continue to be used to determine Scotland’s resources during any transitional period”.

We are seeking full fiscal responsibility and in that event there would obviously have to be changes to Barnett.

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman—I was on the cusp of saying “My hon. Friend”—has made his point so powerfully that we are almost there.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I know that SNP Members are the source of many conspiracy theories, but this is a pretty lame one. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relax a bit and perhaps wait for the chance to advance his own argument. May I take issue with a point he made in his preamble, too? This Parliament respected the victory of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. The constitution is very firmly reserved to the Houses of Parliament, yet, recognising the will of the Scottish people in the Scottish elections, we took measures to devolve the power to hold the referendum to Edinburgh—something that was done peacefully and straightforwardly—and, rather than object, obstruct or get in the way of the referendum, we were active and positive participants in it. I shall come to the question of the vow in a moment.

The aspirations of the people of Scotland have been expressed in many different ways over many years. We have seen a cycle of devolution in which people have argued their case and set out their ideas for new powers, followed by a moment in which people came together and found common ground. Those proposals were then put to the people, to determine and implement more powers.

The vow was important. It underlined what had been happening in Scotland for some time. It was not new; people did not suddenly come up with stuff that had not previously been put forward. The commission that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) led on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland had looked at this issue and reported in 2012. The findings were updated in 2013. The Strathclyde commission, on behalf of the Conservatives, reported last year. The Labour commission reported earlier this year. The party leaders in Scotland came together to pledge more powers earlier this summer. There has been a clear programme, and a commitment from all the UK parties throughout the referendum campaign to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

That may be so—I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying—but the vow made it clear that there would be substantial new powers for the Scottish Parliament. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that prior to this, the parties have never agreed on what those powers should be. That is still not clear; all we see in the Command Paper is three different schemes.

[Michael Moore]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate his contribution to the debate. The Smith commission has been set up to bring those different contributions together and to invite others into the process to ensure that people across Scotland can be part of creating the new settlement. The Smith commission fits exactly into the whole devolution cycle. We have set out the ideas, and Lord Smith has the slightly unenviable task of bringing us all together and sorting out a solution. I am delighted that the Scottish National party has chosen—for the first time ever in circumstances such as these—to be part of the process, and I look forward to working with John Swinney, Linda Fabiani and the others who have been appointed to work with Lord Smith to find the common ground that will be essential if we are to settle this issue in Scotland.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ruane]

The question I drafted on the train from Rhyl to Euston this morning expands on my hon. Friend’s point. It asks what assessment the Minister has made—he might want to think about this overnight—of the reasons why 36% of the British public think that there is electoral fraud, on the impact of Ministers and Government MPs talking about electoral fraud and on its coverage in the media—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendments. I have been rather lenient, but he is going very wide of the subject now.

[Chris Ruane]

You have been very lenient, Mr Weir, and have let me rabbit on for a few minutes.

I give the Government credit for their recognition of representations from both sides of the House, civic society, the police, the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy, the courts and so on. They have listened, but this was all unnecessary. If they had stuck to Labour’s 2015 timetable, we would not have been discussing the matter today and would perhaps have been discussing the economy, growth or other such issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I beg to move amendment 33, page 5, line 12, after ‘penalty’, insert ‘of £500’.

The amendment would provide that the fine for failing to comply with a requirement to make an application to be on the electoral register would be set at £500.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

‘(7A) The civil penalty shall be £100.’.

Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 19, leave out lines 9 and 10.

[Mr Allen]

It is a great pleasure to speak again on these very important issues and, in particular, on the amendments before us, regarding the civic duty that we all have to vote, and the question of what a society does when, in a voluntaristic democracy, some individuals consistently refuse to play by the rules, to play their part and to carry out their share of the democratic duty that should fall on all of us.

We have heard a lot about the sacrifices that people have made, and I will not go over those issues again, but, when one looks at the history books and sees what sacrifices people made to achieve the vote, one finds that it adds great resonance to our debate. We have all had the experience of people who say, “Well, I don’t bother. I don’t even register. A plague on all your houses —it doesn’t mean anything to me.” As far as I am concerned, that is breaking the social contract that we all have when we commit to serving our democracy. If we do not maintain, hone and develop that social contract, we leave the door open for those who would take away our very democracy.

Therefore, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am taking what might at first sight appear to be a rather draconian view. It is that, in extreme circumstances, after many warnings and much discussion, there should be a power—a reserve power—to fine those who deliberately flout the rules and regulations of registration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to labour the point—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Mike Weir)]

Order. Before the Minister gets too far into this, let me remind the Committee that we are not debating the secondary legislation at this point. Let us debate what is before the Committee. The Minister can reply if he wants to, but I hope he will shortly bring us back to the main subject.

[Mr Harper]

That is a good steer, Mr Weir. Let me make the point in passing that the 2009 Act to which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred was not uncontroversial. We voted against it by way of a reasoned amendment because it did not include provisions on individual electoral registration. They were put in only when the Bill went to the other place, so I think we have done very well. Let me clarify what we have done. We have added to the secondary legislation and put in provisions setting out the steps the registration officer should take before insisting on a penalty and we have set out some information about the penalty, to which I shall return in a few moments.

Let me explain, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned it, that “agile methodology” is a way of developing information technology—the way it is done in the private sector—in order to avoid complicated and massive IT systems that cost a fortune, do not work and then have to be scrapped. We have learned much from how the previous Government operated; this is the way in which this Government will develop IT systems, and I think that they will be much more successful.

Picking up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), let me be clear from the beginning that we are talking about registration; we are absolutely not talking about imposing a penalty for not voting. Voting is voluntary and it will remain voluntary. While this Government are in office, there will be no proposals to change that. I am always disappointed when people do not vote, but they absolutely have the right not to, and it is our job as politicians to give them reasons for going out to vote or use their postal vote and to ensure that there is no obstacle to their doing so. If they do not vote, it will be because we have not given them sufficiently compelling reasons either to vote for us or against us, depending on their point of view. That remains the case.

It is worth setting out—it is a bit of a stand part debate, but it is relevant to the amendments—how we have arrived at this point. Members will know that it is not now and will not be in the future a specific offence not to register to vote in the first instance. The current position is that if people do not respond to the household form or, indeed, other inquiries that the electoral registration officer makes—this is the current way of getting on the electoral register—it is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to £1,000. We have no plans to change that; it will remain in place.

The question we faced with the invitation to register was whether to have a penalty. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is quite right that when the draft Bill was first published, it did not include a penalty. Several hon. Members have touched on the public policy reasons justifying a penalty. Some aspects of registration affect other people. First, the register provides the source of jurors, and it is important to have balanced juries made up of a proper cross-section of adult electors. Secondly, electoral registers can affect boundary changes—not just parliamentary boundary changes, but local ones as well, as highlighted by several hon. Members. That is why we decided it made sense to have a civil penalty, which was also in response to the Select Committee’s report and some of the evidence that was taken.

As for the amendments—the Select Committee’s amendment 33 and amendment 14 from the hon. Member for Caerphilly—regardless of the amounts specified, I do not believe it sensible to put the civil penalty directly in the Bill, as this would be better done through secondary legislation. I hesitate to correct the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee, but these matters are not at the diktat of the Minister. All the Bill’s powers are made by Ministers, but they all have to be approved by way of affirmative resolutions by both Houses. There is proper parliamentary control over the exercise of that Executive power.

I hope that both hon. Members will withdraw their amendments; as I said, it is not appropriate to put the figures directly on the face of the Bill rather than implement them through secondary legislation. As for how we get to the figure for the penalty, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is going to remain disappointed for today, as I do not propose to pluck a figure out of the air. The process we want to adopt is one that we have done all the way through—we are going to listen to people. We have explained how we will go about this. We think that the analogy with parking fines is sensible. The hon. Member for Caerphilly observed that there was a range of parking fines across the country, but the range is fairly narrow. A parking fine is not £500; it is about £40 at the lower end and £130 at the higher end.

There are some good arguments in favour of setting the fine at the higher level, for instance to reflect the importance of the matter and to ensure that it is a proper deterrent, but there are also arguments in favour of setting it at the lower level. Unlike the £1,000 fine issued by magistrates who can take into account the circumstances of voters—both the extent to which they believe them to be culpable and their financial resources—this will be a fixed penalty. It should also be borne in mind that although the criminal penalty involves a maximum fine of £1,000, the fines that are actually issued are usually much lower. During the 2011 canvass, the London borough of Hounslow successfully prosecuted 10 people for not providing the information required, but the average fine issued was £125. That was because magistrates were able to take various factors into account. This penalty will be fixed throughout the country, and when it is issued it will not be possible for the electoral registration officer to alter it.

We have listed a number of factors that should guide the arguments in favour of a higher or lower level, given broadly the same range as that which applies to parking fines, and we will do some targeted work with our stakeholders and consider their responses. I suspect that some will favour a reasonably high number for encouragement purposes, while others will be a little concerned about the potential impact.

I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced today. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s proposal is at least in the ball park of the parking fine system, while the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham North on behalf of his Select Committee is rather on the high side. We will draw our conclusions, and Members will be able to see what we have come up with.

I should also say, in response to a point made by both the hon. Member for Caerphilly—who referred to the impact assessment—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, that this is not the first course to which electoral registration officers should resort. We do not want them running around the country handing out fines like confetti; indeed, in an ideal world we would not want fines at all.

Those who receive parking fines can usually reduce them by paying promptly, but they cannot reduce them to zero. In this instance, everyone who incurs a civil penalty—and we hope that the number will be no more than the 100 a year or so who incur criminal penalties—will be able to reduce the amount to zero by registering to vote. If they register as a result of incurring the penalty, the electoral registration officer will be able to waive it. The purpose is to persuade people to register, not to issue fines. The Bill will prevent registration officers from keeping the money, so that they are not tempted, and so that people do not think that they are issuing the fines in order to use them as a revenue generation exercise, which would be just as bad.

We will specify—and have set out in draft regulations—what registration officers must do. They must issue the invitation, send reminders and send a door-to-door canvasser, and they must be satisfied that the individual has received the invitation and still resides at the address involved. Only when they have done all that can they tell people that they will issue a notice, and that if they do not register after that, a penalty will be incurred.

Parliamentary Reform

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate.

There are two aspects to the debate: how Parliament is perceived, and the procedures of Parliament. Parliament is, frankly, often its own worst enemy in terms of how it is perceived. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fiasco over the resignation of Gerry Adams from the House. Leaving aside the undoubted entertainment value of the UK Government and an Irish republican arguing over an ancient Crown title so that he can resign from a Parliament in which he has never taken his seat, does it not illustrate the fact that it is absolute nonsense that the only way a Member can resign is to be appointed to a non-existent title? Incidentally, it was reported that the Chancellor conferred the title on Mr Adams without him applying for it or agreeing to accept it. Is it really the constitutional case that the Chancellor can appoint someone to an office that disqualifies them from sitting in the House without them specifically applying for it? If that is the case, perhaps some potential Tory rebels should consider their position.

However, there are much more important issues to consider in terms of how we carry out our day-to-day procedures. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has produced a paper, which I read with great interest, and I agree with a great deal of it. However, there are one or two things I do not agree with. The whole business of family-friendly hours is a red herring. I come from north-east Scotland, and either I am here or I am there. I cannot be here and go home at night. I would like to see how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority dealt with the travel expenses that would arise if I tried to do so. That simply cannot happen. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) rightly put it, when we were elected to the House, we accepted that we would spend much of our lives here. It does not matter to people from the north of Scotland whether we finish at 6 or 10; we are not going home. From my point of view, if we could squeeze the parliamentary week into two or three days and spend more time in the constituency, it would be perfect.

That brings me to the point that there are two visions of Parliament. I suspect that some Members see Parliament as being about dealing with the big issues and holding Government to account, as has been noted. However, another, competing, issue is that many of our constituents want us to deal with problems on their behalf. We all talk about how we must be more accessible and make Parliament more accessible. That is not done by being unavailable to our constituents because we are here discussing the big issues of the day. We have to deal with the issues that affect everyday life. It is true that many of the people who come to our constituency offices come to us with problems that are not strictly to do with Parliament. However, many of us are then faced with the question of what to do. We can try to say, “You need to go and see somebody else,” but that often only results in the person going away dissatisfied and saying, “Well, they wouldn’t do anything for me.” We all make such decisions daily.

I have put my pen through great screeds of this speech to try not to take up too much time. A lot has been said about electronic voting. There is a huge case for electronic voting for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, the greatest of which is being able to abstain. As a member of a smaller party, I often look at motions tabled by the Government and the official Opposition and say, “A plague on both your houses.” I would love to be able to abstain and be recorded as abstaining, but often we simply do not vote. That is an issue and a lot of hon. Members will feel that way.

I would go further than the hon. Lady. She made the case—possibly to try to engender support—that we should have electronic voting in the Chamber or the Lobby. I disagree. There is no reason why, in the 21st century, when we are wirelessly connected—or not connected, in many cases—to smart phones, iPads and everything else we cannot design a system that is secure enough to allow, although perhaps not on every occasion, people to vote remotely if it is appropriate. I say that because towards the end of last year when we had the dreadful snow, I could not get to London for two whole weeks. I was a member of the Postal Services Bill Committee at the time and missed several sittings—to my great frustration because I had several amendments tabled for debate. I also missed votes in the House. In those circumstances, I do not understand why remote voting cannot be allowed.

We may all kid ourselves that every hon. Member sits and listens to the debate and makes a decision on how to vote, but we all know it is not true. We choose which way to vote for various reasons. Remote voting should be allowed on some occasions, although not in every instance. We have moved a long way from the days when seriously ill people were carried through the Lobby in the middle of the night, but we still queue up for 15 minutes to vote. There is much to be gained from electronic voting. I agree with the point that the design of our Chamber makes it difficult to have voting within the Chamber. It is much easier in, for example, the Scottish Parliament, which is a much smaller Parliament of 129. For a Parliament of 650, the same lay-out is impossible. As I said, in the age of wireless connection, I see no reason why we cannot find a way in which electronic voting can be done. Let us move towards the 20th century, if not the 21st.

The second point I want to consider relates to petitions and making Parliament more relevant to our constituents and giving them a bigger say in what we are doing. Again, the issue has been considered by the House in previous modernisations. Originally, the system was that a Member had his or her 30 seconds in the sun presenting a petition in the Chamber, and they then placed the petition in the bag behind the Speaker’s Chair. Sometime later, they would get a brief response from the Department and that was that. As part of the previous modernisation, petitions are now reported to a Select Committee. However, the process never seems to go any further than that and the petition is simply noted by the Select Committee.

If we want to make Parliament more accessible to constituents, we need to consider a much greater forum to allow genuine concerns to be more fully canvassed by Parliament. For example, in my constituency, there is a threat to close driving test centres. I have raised that matter and debated it in this Chamber with the relevant Minister. However, in my constituency, the campaign has gathered a huge number of signatures on a paper petition and there has been a Facebook petition. It will reach the point when people ask, “What can we do with the petition?” The answer is that they can send it to the Driving Standards Agency to be filed there, they can send it to the Minister, probably to be filed in the Department, or they can give it to me to present to Parliament and it will presumably be reported to the Select Committee on Transport. However, again, no action is likely. We desperately need to look at ways that such petitions can be considered in more detail.

In closing down the No. 10 petition website, the Government announced that they will be introducing a new system whereby, if I understand it correctly, the most popular petitions will be converted into private Members’ Bills—although that opens up the difficulty of how those Bills are dealt with. That is an interesting idea but, if it has been reported correctly, the numbers needed mean that only the most controversial matters or the most organised national campaigns will ever get to that stage. I suggest that we consider a petition system that is more akin to the one that operates in the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, anyone can present a petition to the Scottish Parliament. It only requires one signature and it can be submitted in any language. The petition must, of course, relate to a devolved issue and be relevant on a national level. It is important to note that it does not preclude a local issue where there may be a national angle. To take the example of the driving test centres in my constituency, the issue could relate to how the DSA is dealing with driving tests in rural areas.

In Scotland, a local health issue has been raised on the basis it has been alleged that health boards are not following national guidelines. The Scottish Parliament has set up a Public Petitions Committee that consists of nine MSPs to consider every admissible petition lodged—obviously not all petitions are admissible. That Committee writes to the bodies affected, whether it be the Scottish Government, health boards, police forces, local authorities or whatever, with questions to seek information on the matters raised. It asks the petitioner to comment on them.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

If I am called to speak, I will make reference to my experience in the Scottish Parliament. May I draw to the attention of the House the effectiveness of the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament, and not just in the processing and engagement that it represents? It has led to significant changes in law, most recently on the health service and access to blood. People had been prohibited from getting blood through the NHS and significant laws were changed. That was initiated by the experience of a constituent, through the Public Petitions Committee, so it is effective in changing the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I was just coming to that point. The hon. Lady is correct. The whole point about the petitions procedure in the Scottish Parliament is that by raising a petition, the public can instigate action in the Parliament. The petition is not just something that is filed away as of interest to somebody; the Committee considers how it should proceed. It may hold a hearing at which the petitioners can put their points in person, or through representatives, and it may call, and has often called, Ministers to give evidence on the issue. The Committee does not have the power to impose a solution, but as the hon. Lady said, it can recommend to other Committees and to the Government that action be taken.

Constituents and members of the public who have a valid point have an engagement with the Parliament to get their point across directly. They can be assisted by their MSPs, but their MSPs cannot deliver the petition; it has to done by members of the public. It is a way of making sure that there is engagement with the citizen. That could also be a way for this Parliament to have that engagement. That need not be an exact example; this Parliament deals with a much larger population, and there is a much larger number of MPs and constituencies, but it is not beyond our wit to look at ways to have that engagement with the public. Everything does not need to be channelled through a Member of Parliament. The public will respect this Parliament much more if they can have direct access, and there are ways to do that.

A point was raised about explaining the meaning of an amendment. It is already possible to do that in a Committee, so MPs need to look at their own actions sometimes, but I ask Members who have sat on Public Bill Committees, how often is it actually done? It is rare now, in my experience. It was introduced in the previous Parliament as a trial, at the same time as laptops, if I remember correctly. MPs do not seem to be using the procedure, so we have to look at that. If we are serious about modernisation, and if these issues are raised, let us use them and show that we are interested in pushing forward with modernisation; otherwise, debates such as this are utterly pointless.

Parliament has, in recent years, through the expenses scandal and other things, lost a lot of its reputation. It may seem strange for me to make such points, as someone who wishes to get out of this Parliament, but while we are here it is important that we engage with the public and find ways to enable them to see us as relevant to their lives. If we fail to do that, it will increase the democratic deficit and will prove a grave danger to our future.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that the proceedings will now finish at 5.45 pm? I propose to start the wind-ups at 5.5 pm and there are still a lot of Members indicating that they wish to speak so I again appeal for brevity.

Business of the House

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman draws a very serious issue to the House’s attention. He may have seen the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which made it absolutely clear that we deplore the actions of the Iranian Government in proposing to execute that lady. I hope that there may be time, through either the Backbench Business Committee, questions or the activity of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to add weight to the representations that have already been made, and I know that everybody in the House hopes that the life of that lady may be spared.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the continuing problems that parents with care have in obtaining child maintenance from some absent parents who are self-employed or company directors and are able to reduce their income artificially. May we have a debate on what more can be done to tackle that problem, and particularly on what changes are necessary to the application and determination procedure in the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000?

[Sir George Young]

I think every hon. Member hears cases at their advice bureau in which an absent parent is accused of under-declaring their income, and if they are self-employed it is very difficult for the Child Support Agency or its successor organisation to verify that. That results in real hardship for the parent with the children. One possible way forward is that the new Select Committee on Work and Pensions may wish to revisit the subject. Alternatively, if the Backbench Business Committee receives sufficient representations, it may wish to find time for a debate. The subject for 14 October has not yet been allocated. I agree entirely that the issue needs to be addressed, because it comes up in all our advice bureaux.