MPs to produce constitutional reform blueprint by summer
Cross-party talks to discuss fixed-term parliaments and removal of members
Emergency cross-party talks on rebuilding trust in the political system will begin within two weeks, it was announced yesterday.
They will discuss sweeping overhaul of Commons procedures, as well as the power to remove unpopular MPs and the case for introducing fixed-term parliaments. Reflecting the urgency of the crisis facing politics since the expenses scandal erupted, the aim will be to produce a blueprint for reform by the summer. However, there is no prospect of the talks discussing changes to the voting system.
The talks, to be chaired by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw and the Commons Leader Harriet Harman, will be attended by senior representatives of the Tories, Liberal Democrats and the minor parties.
The moves emerged after all the leaders of all three main parties, writing in The Independent, called for a radical shift of power from politicians to electors. Gordon Brown pledged to make "political elites" more accountable, while the Tory leader David Cameron warned that voters felt "on the periphery of power" and Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats demanded an end to the House of Lords.
Further ideas for radically reforming Britain's democracy are set out in today's paper by 10 parliamentarians from across the political spectrum. They include lowering the voting age to 16, strengthening the role of backbenchers in the Commons and introducing proportional representation.
The issue of constitutional reform has surged up the political agenda since the expenses furore rocked Westminster. There are growing signs of a consensus on the need to act rapidly. The new talks will discuss whether to design a system of "recall" for corrupt and incompetent MPs whereby they have to face a new election if enough of their electorate back the move.
The Independent disclosed yesterday that Mr Brown was sympathetic to the principle of recall as long as safeguards were in place to prevent MPs falling victim to malicious campaigns to oust them. A government source added: "Jack Straw is interested in the idea."
Mr Cameron is said by party sources to have "not ruled out" the recall idea. But – like the Prime Minister – he believes it should only happen in the most exceptional circumstances.
The arguments for and against fixed-term parliaments will also be thrashed out. Mr Cameron has said he will "look carefully" at removing from the prime minister the right to dictate the timing of elections, while Mr Brown wants the subject discussed. Supporters of the move say it would remove the in-built advantage enjoyed by sitting governments, although critics warn that ways need to be found for dealing with situations where administrations are elected with tiny majorities that might not survive for the term of a parliament.
Detailed alterations to Commons procedures will also be discussed by the parties. Ideas to be examined include whether select committees should be strengthened by removing the power of the party whips to nominate their chairmen and members. That move is winning widespread support across the main parties.
They also agree on the need to find fresh ways of making proceedings in the Commons more relevant to the public. The parties will discuss whether petitions signed by large number of people can trigger debates, as well as making it easier for backbench MPs to win parliamentary time for private members' bills.
The Government source said: "Part of the reason we have had a problem with expenses is because of a culture which has become divorced from the electorate. But we believe there is a willingness on all sides to make progress on this."
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Brown was "open to any proposal" for political reform. He said the Prime Minister believed politicians should not lose sight of the fact they were sent to Parliament to "address the everyday concerns of those who had elected them". He said there were "pros and cons" over the issue of fixed-term parliaments which Mr Brown was happy to debate.
The Prime Minister has called for an independent regulator of the Commons expenses system. The Government will either add the proposal to the Constitutional Renewal Bill going through Parliament or include it in an emergency stand-alone Bill. The Bill is aimed at giving MPs more power to scrutinise treaties, streamlining the role of the Attorney General and reducing the Lord Chancellor's role in appointing judges. It also eases the restrictions on demonstrations in and around Parliament Square.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
The only way that the system can be reformed is by pressure from outside.
What we see here are reforms proposed by MPs to reassure the public - but leave as much unchanged as possible.
We should not fall for this obvious denial of democracy.
I once had a very untidy housemate who, when pushed, would do the bare minimum housework for a few minutes before sitting down with another bifta and Star Trek. This seems very similar.
The reforms should be designed by ordinery citizens through the jury system and a panel of truly independent experts, academics and historians - and the proprosed solution should be put to the country in a referendum.
The conduct of the political elite has been shameful for decades and the expenses scandal is the final straw for most citizens. True reform should be designed by the people, for the people and following implementation, should also be regulated by the people.
Referenda are a good idea - but they can be used to advantage.
The devil is in the detail.
Someone is trying to advance the Swiss system of citizen referenda - that citizens can petition for a referendum to demand new legislation, or veto legislation.
This system works well in Switzerland, an gives citizens control over laws and government
In California, the same system has put more power in the hands of corporate interests, who can campaign to raise votes, get TV air time, press space, etc. The differences relate to details in the length of time allowed to campaign before a referendum (Switzerland - long campaign, California - short time) the size of the state and various other little details.
Recall system - look at California, Enron and the election of Swarzenneger - see the film 'ENRON smartest guys in the room'
Fixed-term Parliaments are an excellent idea, politics should not allow the incumbent party to call an election when circumstances favour them most rather than what is best for the country. While Gordon Brown dithered in the aftermath of his replacement of Tony Blair, the country drifted for several months.
The position of Prime Minister should be related to electoral success, not the gift of a small group within a political party. Never again should a Prime Minister be appointed merely on the basis that they became leader of a political party.
Just get into jail and let the people decide what is to be done reform parliament.
Mr Brown was "open to any proposal" for political reform - as long as it isn't one that affects him in any way...
Buy a new engine.
ANY reform based upon the corrupt lobby-system that includes first-past-the-post will change nothing and MP's will simply switch from expenses to the other corrupt part of our inbred political system: The lobby system. There is nothing wrong with either MP's or companies, BUT:
It's just VERY unhealthy and really isn't serving a nation if in fact you are really working for, say, the french state-owned giant EDF after just two years of being elected as an MP, already a lobby company has contacted you and EDF is the company they wish you to meet. (In this case see G.Brown and then notice how many road works (former British companies) are being worked on, then see who are building the electrical sub-stations, who has the future nuclear building programme, then view his family members).
This really is the last chance saloon for British people to get genuine representation in our parliament.
Don't listen to the lick-and-spittle MP's like Straw who use the BNP as an excuse to deny us real (proper) representation, their few MP's once elected will be nothing. Nada.
We not only need proper representation but we need the entire lobby system to be formerly regulated- and it needs to be overseen by a media-savvy real independent organisation to oversee these contacts between MP's and these companies that includes an independent advertising budget as well to advise us, with the first premise that any MP who has any link to any company is plainly listed on the internet so that his or her speech can be monitored.
There is a place for company-government interaction, it's just not the corridors of parliament or small eateries where it should be held.
In the meantime, just pay yourself a decent honest wage for looking after 61-62 million people in a G20 nation and start to then put us, and not your post-MP life first.
The practise of "whipping" must cease. M.P's are elected to represent all of their constituents not the leader of their party.
The cost of an M.P's pension and termination package shall be taken into account and shown in all references to Gross Remuneration. Gross Remuneration shall be taxable. No other remuneration will be given, i.e. expenses and allowances. The Salary for an M.P. is 2.5 times the average wage. The Salary of a Cabinet Minister is three times the average salary.
The remuneration package will be stated as a contract and last for the duration of the parliament. There can be no changes during a parliament and no exceptions will be made.
Changes to conditions and salaries must be published before an election as a part of a manifesto.
Now the clever buggers can toss these ideas around and come up with some simple and unequivocal ideas so we simple electors can understand them.