B1171 - Representation and Residency Bill 2017

Watch
This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Representation and Residency Bill 2017, TSR Government



Representation and Residency Bill 2017


An Act to require that elected representatives reside within the area they represent.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Definitions
For the purposes of this bill:–
(1) “Reside” refers to occupying an owned or rented residential property for more than six months of the year and being on the electoral register at that address.
(2) “Elected representative” refers to anybody occupying an elected office listed in section 2 of this Act.

2: Requirements
(1) Constituency Members of Parliament must reside within their constituency.
(2) Regional Members of Parliament must reside within their electoral region.
(3) Members of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly must reside within their constituency or electoral region as appropriate.
(4) Members of county councils in England must reside within their council area.
(5) Municipal mayors must reside within their municipality.

3: Eligibility to stand for election
All candidates for elections of elected representatives must have resided within the area set out under the provisions of section 2 for six months before the date of the election.

4: Contravention
Any elected representative found to be in contravention of section 2 will be removed from all of their positions as an elected representative.

5: Exemptions
(1) Any elected representative provided with an official residence may count time spent living at their official residence for the purpose of satisfying the six-month requirement in 1(1).
(2) Any elected representative provided with an official residence must continue to be the owner-occupier or tenant of a residential property in the area set out under the provisions of section 2.

6: Entry into effect
This Act will enter into effect for each individual elected representative position following the next election to that particular position.

7: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force immediately.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Representation and Residency Act 2017.


Notes
This bill looks to ensure communities have proper representation by a local resident who is in touch with the area by requiring that representatives live in the areas they represent.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The Neil Hamilton Bill – very proud to put this forward in the name of the government.
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
A very sensible bill. Aye.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Aye. I think this bill speaks to a concern that many of our constituents hold.
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Aye, never did understand why you allowed otherwise
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Nay
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Just to clarify, does "council area" for county council elections refer to a specific electoral ward or the overall area of the authority?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Birchington)
Just to clarify, does "council area" for county council elections refer to a specific electoral ward or the overall area of the authority?
The overall area of the authority. I will consider adding an apostrophe for second reading / division to clear that up.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Aye
0
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by fleky6910)
Nay
Why?

Aye, for the sake of common sense.
0
username2808800
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by _gcx)
Why?

Aye, for the sake of common sense.
I am opposed.

The chancellor and PM should be allowed to run in safe seats.

No one pays attention to who their MP is , just the party.
I am not sure it will actually change anything.

I don't approve of change for changes sake.

My opinion on this doesn't matter as I suspect this bill will pass by a landslide.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by fleky6910)
I am opposed.

The chancellor and PM should be allowed to run in safe seats.
And they should live in those seats when they do, it's only fair on their electorates.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
Aye, sensible bill.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
This is a bill that protects the wealthy MPs, punishes the poorer MPs, and does not have a huge difference on things. Political parties will select their candidates earlier, the wealthy MP will buy a second home in the constituency which will be made their primary address, and the wealthy MPs will continue to stand in safe seats. Poorer MPs will be forced out of politics if selection decisions go against them because they cannot afford to buy a house in any constituency to stand. And a primary address does not need to be lived in because occupying has not been defined, it could be argued regular use of the property for sixth months of the year counts as occupation.

I am surprised RayApparently supports a bill that boosts the power of wealthy individuals in politics, increases the chance of a wealthy individual being elected an MP, and harms the ability of poorer individuals to enter politics.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
This is a bill that protects the wealthy MPs, punishes the poorer MPs, and does not have a huge difference on things. Political parties will select their candidates earlier, the wealthy MP will buy a second home in the constituency which will be made their primary address, and the wealthy MPs will continue to stand in safe seats. Poorer MPs will be forced out of politics if selection decisions go against them because they cannot afford to buy a house in any constituency to stand. And a primary address does not need to be lived in because occupying has not been defined, it could be argued regular use of the property for sixth months of the year counts as occupation.

I am surprised RayApparently supports a bill that boosts the power of wealthy individuals in politics, increases the chance of a wealthy individual being elected an MP, and harms the ability of poorer individuals to enter politics.
Nobody needs to buy a house in a constituency prior to being selected as a candidate, they can do so afterwards provided candidate selection takes place early enough (and the ball there is in individual parties' courts) – and this should be something a candidate is prepared to do if they want the privilege of representing that area.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Nobody needs to buy a house in a constituency prior to being selected as a candidate, they can do so afterwards provided candidate selection takes place early enough (and the ball there is in individual parties' courts) – and this should be something a candidate is prepared to do if they want the privilege of representing that area.
I agree, however, the candidates who have the capability to quickly buy a house in the constituency they want to represent are the candidates who have wealth. In the current situation, poorer candidates can be designated safe seats to create diversity in MPs, with this change diversity will depend on a poor candidate happening to live in the safe constituency, or representation of poor individuals is not as certain as it is now.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
This is a bill that protects the wealthy MPs, punishes the poorer MPs, and does not have a huge difference on things. Political parties will select their candidates earlier, the wealthy MP will buy a second home in the constituency which will be made their primary address, and the wealthy MPs will continue to stand in safe seats. Poorer MPs will be forced out of politics if selection decisions go against them because they cannot afford to buy a house in any constituency to stand. And a primary address does not need to be lived in because occupying has not been defined, it could be argued regular use of the property for sixth months of the year counts as occupation.

I am surprised RayApparently supports a bill that boosts the power of wealthy individuals in politics, increases the chance of a wealthy individual being elected an MP, and harms the ability of poorer individuals to enter politics.
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Nobody needs to buy a house in a constituency prior to being selected as a candidate, they can do so afterwards provided candidate selection takes place early enough (and the ball there is in individual parties' courts) – and this should be something a candidate is prepared to do if they want the privilege of representing that area.
I think Nige raises a decent point but it should be remembered that TSR UK uses a mixed electoral system whereby half the MPs are elected via a list system. So parties that want to ensure that sort of diversity can do so using the list.
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
Aye a decent proposal
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
I think we will get some of the abuses that take place with attempts to get school places. i think the provisions should apply after you have been elected.
0
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
aye
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (68)
61.82%
No (42)
38.18%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed