PARLIAMENT

Parliament is an archaic institution that is out of touch with ordinary people and modern customs, and needs to be updated in order to better reflect modern life. Its working practices and customs should be modernised so the general public feel more connected to it. While we respect the history of our Parliament and that traditionalists will not want change, previous Parliaments did not operate in a vacuum. The values of Parliamentarians evolved over time to take account of changes in the world around them. If Parliament does not reflect the modern era, why should anyone be expected to believe it can solve their problems?

• MPs often work long and unsociable hours which leads to a poor work-life balance and erects barriers to MPs and staff that have children, disabilities and other such commitments. We would introduce standard 9-5 working hours, reduce the number of late-night sittings (dependent on the urgency of the issue), and allow remote or proxy voting for MPs with caring/parental responsibilities.

• The formal language expected from MPs in the chamber such as referring to each other as “my (Right) Honourable Friend” or referring to the House of Lords as “the Other Place” etc. is pompous archaic theatre that has no connection to the modern world, makes politicians seem out of touch, and should be stopped. MPs should call each other by name – ‘Mr/Ms X’, refer to the chambers by their proper names, along with any other relevant changes as well.

• The Executive currently dominates the Parliamentary agenda and backbench MPs have little input. There should be more Opposition Days and be expanded to include backbenchers as well.

• Select committees should be given more power to summon witnesses, task them with evidence-based lawmaking, and hold ministers to account if they cannot provide reputable sourcing for their claims.

• Debates should not be allowed to become theatrical performances with MPs shaking papers and braying like donkeys. It is embarrassing that the ‘Mother of All Parliaments’ acts like this. They are supposed to be professional representatives and the Parliamentary code of conduct should require them to act like it. We would amend the Parliamentary Code of Conduct to require professional demeanour during Parliamentary sessions and votes, and the Speaker given stronger powers to discipline MPs who don’t comply.

• Experiment with changing the seating layout to a semicircle as studies show that face-to-face seating encourages adversarial and combative behaviour.

• The oath of allegiance that MPs swear should be to their constituents and the British people, not to the monarch. We literally had a civil war about whether Parliament should be subservient to the Crown.

• There is also a major problem with a toxic work culture. Bullying, harassment, and sexism also still persist despite numerous instances being reported which is unacceptable. Every other workplace has strict policies against these things and Parliament should be no exception. It should be setting an example on professional standards of behaviour. There should be a strong independent complaints process with the power to issue and enforce meaningful punishments.

• While good efforts have been made to increase diversity, with women (41% as of 2024), ethnic minorities (14%), disabled, state-educated, and LGBTQ+ MPs (9.85%) now represented, there is still work to be done. One particular group that Parliament severely lacks are working-class MPs. We would introduce a Representative Democracy Reform Act with rising quotas and implement the Sutton Trust’s recommendations to decrease these gaps and encourage all parties to run mentoring schemes and other programmes to attract candidates from this background.

  • We propose incrementally-rising quotas until 2039 (assuming 5-year intervals between General Elections). This amount of time is plenty for all parties to find suitable candidates:

• • Reasoning:

    • 7% of children are privately educated in the UK while 23% of MPs are. 88% of children attend a state comprehensive while 63% of 2024 MPs did.

    • Less than 1% of the population go to Oxford or Cambridge, yet 75% of all UK Prime Ministers and 20% of MPs (19% Labour, 29% Conservative) studied there.

    • Only 10% of MPs did not go to university compared to 81%, and 40% hold a post-graduate qualification.

    • Quotas are required to force change through, because vested interests are inherently self-selecting and will not voluntarily seek MPs from outside of their traditional networks or class interests. Once they have been reached, and drawing MPs from a wide selection of society is the new normal, the new system will become self-sustaining and meritocratic.

  • Non-compliance should be punished with reduction in Short Money and/or fine of percentage of donations that scale according to party wealth.

  • Ban personal campaign spending i.e. no self-funding.

  • Candidate selections should follow a ‘balanced ticket’ rule whereby one candidate that attended a private school or Oxbridge/Russell Group university should be paired with another who attended a state school or did not go to university in a neighbouring constituency. Tax returns and asset disclosures should be provided pre-selection to election auditors to monitor this.

  • Implementation:

    • Amend the Equality Act 2010 to allow “positive action” in candidate selection – all-women shortlists were ruled legal so similar logic should apply.

    • Electoral Commission will audit party shortlists pre-election.

    • We also propose to create apprenticeship-style pathways into politics via trade unions and community leadership to encourage those who dismiss politics as an elite/posh career to enter.

    • Jobs in Parliament and politics more widely should be openly advertised rather than filled informally from networks of contacts. Interviews should be held and successful candidates should be appointed fairly and transparently on the basis of merit. Better support should be provided to staff such as childcare and improved disability access.

• By having Parliament permanently in London, MPs get sucked into the ‘Westminster Bubble’ and lose touch with the outside world. We would have more Parliamentary hearings and sittings around the country.

  • The logistics of moving the entire Parliamentary staff would be tough (e.g. security issues) and expensive so the MPs would travel with a small contingent of their staff, and the rest (library staff, researchers etc) could remain in Westminster. This would allow MPs to see areas they otherwise would never visit, help them understand local issues and concerns, and potentially increase participation, visibility and trust, while making use of remote working technology can keep them in touch with Westminster.

• House Of Lords reform

  • We are sceptical of making the House of Lords an elected chamber. An elected chamber would likely make its members feel beholden to following their party whips. As the revising chamber, members’ primary concern should be voting according to their expertise and revising bad legislation, and not being loyal to a party line.

  • Reduce the number of Lords by establishing an Independent Appointment Board to review all appointments. 831 members is too high and overtly political appointees should be removed as a starting point, reducing further if the number is still high. They will prioritise keeping people with industry experience who can provide deep insight in their particular fields and thus improve the quality of legislation, and seek to diversify that knowledge base as much as possible within the limits of evidence-based lawmaking.

  • We will impose term limits of 10-15 years on Lords so it does not become a sinecure, but allows members to continue providing contemporary knowledge without the constraint of short-term party loyalty. Once their term ends, the IAB can decide on whether their contributions have been valuable and offer them a new term if they are assessed as worth keeping.

  • The £361 (as of 2024) daily allowance should be reduced to £150 (£18.75 per hour for an 8-hour day, £36,000 per 48-week year, excluding a 4-week holiday which they shouldn’t be paid for as they are not employees. This is roughly the national median wage and should not receive an extra 10% bump like we propose for MPs due to Lords’ inherent job security). Food should not be included as the public do not receive lunch expenses, and should only be payable to members who actively contribute to the day’s proceedings. They shall not be allowed to sign in and then immediately leave again. If they want a fair day’s pay, they can do a fair day’s work for it!