My own particular snow misery this week has been the enormous difficulty of getting to London for debates. I went there and back the other day, but could not afford to spend another 6 hours on the journey today, without even the certainty of success. So I have been watching proceedings in the Lords live on parliamentlive.tv http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7329
This is an absolutely excellent service, with very clear pictures and sound; so clear that one can almost imagine oneself present. I am frustrated that I will not be able to vote on certain amendments to the Public Bodies Bill, which are of special concern to me. This led me to wonder whether it is fair that it is so much easier for peers resident in London to be present and therefore more influential than those of us in the regions, especially now that the expenses system takes no account of distance from London. Maybe the time will come when electronic distance voting might be permitted. The very strong arguments against it are that peers would not be encouraged to attend and hear the issues debated if they could vote from a distance, there might even be fraud, and the proceedings in the Chamber would thereby be downgraded. On the other hand, voting is of course permitted if one is physically present for the vote even if the voter has not been in the chamber for the debate. Perhaps there might be a “severe weather” exception for those who can be shown to have listened to the debate on screen, all the more so if we are, as predicted, heading for another mini-ice age.
Does this mean that the weather is in breach of the law, preventing Parliamentarians from attending? (See Lord Soley’s post about the Student Protest)
As for the absentee voting, exactly the same arguments should be raised against postal votes in local and national elections. It’s too easy to abuse the system. I believe it’s also why the concept of attending in person is important in the courts, because it allows the judge and others to see that a witness is not under immediate coercion from someone off-camera.
It doesn`t matter if one is present or not, in actual fact I`m pretty sure that although some bodies may appear there at times the minds are elsewhere if at all.
We have some serious security that can be implemented nowadays and electronic has to be the way to go. There are I feel too many issues for an old Lords to look at that would take too much time in it`s present form. I can`t see alterations being made not unless there`s a revolution afoot.
” Exception for those who can be shown to have listened to the debate on screen”.
We can`t even prove those in the House listened with any intent. Watching a lot of footage there are times I want to take snapshots of slumbering Members, forgive that term but it seems apt ! One could go onto ask does the House suffer from ED, it certainly seems unable to stand up and be counted at times and is becoming more impotent as time goes on.
Indeed, Parliamentlive is good. I also liked the BBC’s DemocracyLive (news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive), but it begun to go really slow for me and now it crashes Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome for me. I must get round to emailing BBC tech support…
In terms of electronic voting, I would only like to see it if we could be more assured of the security around it. I’ve heard too many tales of unscrupulous representatives voting with other members’ voting machines to have much confidence in a vague ‘electronic voting system’.
I have thought as much re electronic and distance voting in debates as the way ahead for parliamentary democracy, an improvement on the cumbersome chamber arrangements for the European assembly, which are prescribed by language.
In the event of voting at a distance you rally have got to rely on the integrity of the (elected) member at some point in the proceedings and whether he/she votes electronically at the electronic point of contact should not be an issue. Video guarantees of presence when voting electronically would be available.
If you wanted you could even have your 800 peers voting from home and debating from home as well. They would not get their expenses then though would they?!
Most of them are senile at the moment, so there is no point thinking about it, other than on the noble Baroness whim, but astute.
BBC Parliament Channel is indeed very good though not without its faults. In my humble opinion, there is a disproportionate coverage of your lordships relative to the other place; insufficient coverage of bill-making; insufficient explanation of what an amendment to a bill would effect; excessive (though interesting to see once) material about the building, about procedures and about quirky phrases; and too much emphasis on PMQs with all the yah-boo involved.
Electronic renmote voting – no way.
Of course the system creates a London-resident bias. Direct elections or, as I would have preferred, a regional top-up indirect electoral system for the Lords might remedy that somewhat. But really the Lords should not be about voting so much as airing, thinking, articulating. If the House of Lords becomes a place where voting is a major function, where the Government must win, it will go downhill (as it did when HMG always did win).