Time to cut Westminster down to size

LAST week I watched Theresa May undergo three hours of continuous questioning from MPs on the subject of bombing Syria.

It was a marathon performance and a testament to her stamina.

However, the repetition of questions as MPs ensured their names were recorded in Hansard appalled me.

Mrs May had to continuously refer back to previous answers. She had little new to add after the first hour.

This, of course, is the stuff of traditional politics.

It made a strong case for Government to continue with proposals to reduce the membership of the House from 650 to 600, thus saving an estimated £50 million per annum after the 2022 election. Proposals were going to be laid before Parliament this autumn, but there has been silence of late and I don’t think that this is going to happen.

Mrs May leads a minority Government, and I have a feeling she would not get the required legislation through Parliament.

In any case, the Democratic Unionist Party, her vital support at Westminster, is totally opposed to the constituency boundary changes that have been proposed.

It’s very strange that although we currently have 650 MPs, there are only actual seats in the Commons for 437, so for important debates many have to stand, if they can get in at all.

Suggestions that Parliament should be moved to more modern premises are rejected across the board for traditional reasons, yet there are times when constituencies are not being properly represented.

Compared to the pleasant airy provincial chambers in Cardiff and Edinburgh, where all members have a seat and desk, Westminster is archaic.

Reform and rehousing are badly needed, and a start could be made by reducing the number of MPs, especially as much legislation has now been devolved.

If Westminster is to be retained for historical reasons, then Members should move out for a few years whilst the major works required to bring the House up to standard could be undertake,

But first, reduce the numbers and cut costs.