THE Chamber of the House of Commons can sometimes be an isolated place. Stuck right in the middle of the Palace of Westminster, it’s bounded by a series of labyrinthine corridors and wood-panelled committee rooms, bordered on one side by the River Thames and completely surrounded by a 21st-century security cordon reflecting the full might of the police and security services.
While the green benches are full to bursting for Prime Minister’s Questions or major set-piece events like the Budget, the majority of the time the numbers attending debates usually average fewer than a couple of dozen, and occasionally even fewer.
Given this insulated positon, along with working long hours away from our constituents and families back home, it could perhaps be forgiven if sometimes Members of Parliament fall into an institutionalised state. The Westminster bubble is a real phenomenon, of which we should all be aware.
That’s why when MPs gathered once again in the grand committee room in the corner of Westminster Hall to debate President Trump, the atmosphere was materially different from what we are now used to. Not only were there more MPs present in that small room than were on the usual green benches only a hundred yards away, but as the speeches began we began to hear voices from across the road in Parliament Square. The voices of those gathering for a protest against Trump’s invitation.
As the debate progressed into London’s early-evening rush hour, those of us in the room could hear the noise of the crowd growing louder and louder. The noise got to such a level during Carol Monaghan’s fantastic contribution that other MPs had to ask her to speak up so they could hear her above the protests outside.
The scale and strength of public feeling on this important matter, and the direct responsibility we had to those outside, was clear to all of us who took part.
I’m glad that this debate wasn’t carried out in isolation from the world outside. It took place because almost two million people in these islands joined together to petition parliament not to extend an invitation for a state visit to President Trump. A counter petition gained only a sixth of this support.
In my Ochil and South Perthshire constituency alone, almost 3000 people have already signed up to make their voices heard.
While south of the Border a debate continues to rage in some parts over the degree of parliamentary sovereignty Westminster enjoys following the Brexit vote, I follow the Scottish tradition which considers the people as sovereign. Parliament should serve the voters.
That’s why I believe these debates are so important. MPs have a multitude of opportunities to raise issues of local, national and international importance in parliament. We can table motions and ask questions, vote on legislation and appear on committees. But these parliamentary petitions are the sole mechanism that the public has outside of an election to directly force parliamentary action.
In the past year, this mechanism has required MPs to debate issues as varied as ending the international ivory trade, taxing sugary drinks and halting UK airstrikes in Syria – all because petitions championing these causes have gained more than 100,000 supporters.
I absolutely agree that parliamentarians need to demonstrate leadership on issues of the day, but this shouldn’t be at the expense of reacting to public opinion.
As we prepare for the huge deliberations that are still to come around the direction of government policy and most importantly the future of the United Kingdom itself, it’s vital that parliamentarians don’t turn in on ourselves when we stand toe to toe in debate.
We must remain servants of the people.
As we ready ourselves for the political contests ahead, it’s incumbent on all of us who are already engaged in public life to look outwards and not inwards. We won’t develop the winning arguments for the future if we operate in an echo chamber or within a political bubble.
Like the debate we had earlier this week, it’s important that we reach out beyond our party-political comfort zones, and first make a conscious effort to listen directly to those we need to win over.
Our politics should be centred on the people in Scotland, not the palaces in which we work.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel