Parliamentary Reform: It’s not so hard

Ever since the Parliamentary expense scandal broke last year, demands for comprehensive reform have grown.

The problem has been that those who are in a position to enact reform are part of the discredited system and remain attached to their gains. The way in which the investigations have been carried out and the piecemeal approach by the three main parties shows this all too well.
 
However at 10am on Friday (5th February) a Bill will go to its second reading in the House of Lords. Presented by the UK Independence Party peer, David Willoughby de Broke it amounts to the simplest most radical vision for reform that this country has ever seen. If enacted it would mark a change in our governance as significant as the Great Reform Bill of 1832.
 
And it would not be a minute too soon.
 
It would amount to a fundamental realignment of British politics, one in which for the first time for decades the wishes of politicians would be placed where they should be, beneath those of the public.
 
It would consist of a series of simple amendments to current statute.
 
It calls for us to withdraw from the European Union, in order that our Government was accountable to our electorate. It would repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act, which has undermined the Government’s ability to deal with crime and terrorism. It would ensure that no internationally binding agreements may be entered into and no military action may be taken without the prior authorization of Parliament.
 
In parliamentary reform it would require number of parliamentary constituencies to be substantially reduced to around 250, down from 646. Parliament would sit for a fixed five-year term. The number of sitting days to be substantially reduced, which in turn would reduce the amount of legislation which currently engulfs us.
 
MPs would receive a salary of £30,000 with expenses of up to £170,000, but they would continue to be allowed to have external incomes, ensuring that they maintained so connection with the reality of modern Britain.
 
There referendum to be held on the position of the House of Lords within seven years, whether to move to an elected, appointed or otherwise upper house.
 
In order to ensure that decisions are made where they most affect us, local government would gain significant powers. Whilst ensuring that certain clearly defined national reserved matters (eg national treasury, defence, foreign affairs, border control etc) are retained at Westminster.
 
Binding national referendums would be held, triggered by a qualifying petition signed by at least 1/60 of persons on the electoral register, including on whether a general election is to be held between the statutory dates.
 
Local authority elections would be held every five years or when called for by a local referendum of those registered on the local authority’s electoral roll; a local authority is empowered to call a local referendum if it thinks fit or if there is a petition signed by 1/60 of persons on the electoral register of the local authority.
 
A review of public bodies and quangos to be conducted by the Secretary of State to establish which ones, if any, should be transferred to local authorities or abolished. (RDAs, regional assemblies etc.)
 
With these and other provisions we would see a democratic revolution. One which would forever ensure that the political classes became, as they are supposed to servants of the public.