News

Howard's Way.... a weekly column from the Rt. Hon. Michael Howard QC. MP. 

28 May 2009

One of the good things about the current controversy over MP’s expenses is that it has begun to concentrate people’s minds on the need to look again at some of the way in which we do politics.

Much attention has been focused this week on the proposals put forward by Alan Johnson to introduce an element of proportional representation into the way we elect Members of Parliament. The trouble with this proposal, as with other varieties of PR is that to a greater or lesser extent they cut the link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies. I regard this as a fundamental feature of our parliamentary democracy and one we should cherish.

It is true that Mr Johnson would keep the constituency link for some MP’s but others would be elected on a “top-up” system from Party lists. So you would end up with two classes of Members of Parliament and so far from making MP’s more accountable to the electorate it would mean that some of them would only be accountable to their parties – not what most of us would regard as an ideal solution.

It is also worth looking at the motive behind these proposals. If we were to end up with a hung Parliament after the next election, this proposal could form the basis of a deal under which the Liberal Democrats would prop up another Labour-led Government. I doubt that is what most people would want.

The same test of motive should be applied to David Cameron’s proposals. But since they amount to a reduction in the powers of the Prime Minister – a position he hopes and expects to occupy in less than a year’s time – it is a test which he passes.

Of course, that does not mean that they should be exempt from intense scrutiny. On the contrary, they should be subjected to vigorous debate.

Paradoxically, that is what has been much less evident in Parliament itself over the last few years. One of the main reasons for this is the curtailment, by the Government, of the time allocated for debating and scrutinising legislation through its use of “guillotine” motions. Limiting the use of this kind of measure would be a big step forward. It is one of the most important of David Cameron’s proposals.