Electoral reform is all very well, but it won’t make a difference unless we empower the House of Commons itself

By Tom Copley

There’s no doubt that we need radical reform of our political system, and in particular the House of Commons. Gordon Brown’s call for a debate about our electoral system is a welcome one, but we must tread carefully. Rushing into introducing proportional representation as a quick fix to sate public anger following the expenses scandal would be dangerous. We need to consider exactly what kind of political system we want before we mess about with the electoral system, and we don’t want to end up with an electoral system less fair than the one we already have.

The issue of the power of the whips and the independence of MPs has been a major focus of the press during recent weeks. I’ve always argued for a more independent Parliament, with MPs who are more willing to defy their own party line and vote with their conscience or constituents in mind. But simple electoral reform will not achieve this. What on paper can seem a very fair electoral system can, in reality, make MPs even less independent than they are already. Any electoral system that involves a party list immediately places the party leadership in a commanding role. It is difficult to imagine someone like John McDonnell being elected on a party list – and although I often disagree with him I believe we are better off with his voice in the Labour Party and in Parliament.

My favoured solution would be to combine the best of PR and majoritarian electoral systems by keeping the first past the post system for the House of Commons and replacing the House of Lords with a chamber elected by single transferrable vote from multi-member constituencies. I confess I would be sorry to lose the expertise of many of the appointed Lords, and would mourn the loss of a House that has stood in the way of the present Government’s seemingly insatiable desire to curb our civil liberties. But I see no alternative if we are to build a properly accountable, powerful Parliament that can effectively hold the executive to account and, when necessary, overrule it.

But electoral reform can only play a small part in increasing the independence of MPs. You can have a Parliament elected any way you like, but if it is still beholden to an over-mighty executive nothing will change. That’s why we need to debate something far more dry than electoral reform: the procedures of the House of Commons itself.

Over the years the executive has chipped away at the ability of Parliament to hold it to account. The House of Commons has no power to regulate its own timetable (unlike the Lords); select committees are effectively appointed by the whips; and, as was prominently demonstrated during the ultimately successful attempt to unseat the Speaker, only the Government can make a motion “substantive” (give it time for debate). During times of crisis the Speaker can only recall the House at the request of the Government. Backbenchers have virtually no procedural power. Even Private Members’ Bills are given second class treatment compared to Government Bills: you can filibuster (talk out) a Private Members Bill, for example, but you can’t filibuster a Government Bill.

All of these procedural matters need to be addressed if we are to strengthen Parliament vis-à-vis the executive. We need secret ballots for select committees, equality for Private Members legislation and powers for backbenchers to call debates if enough cross-party support is received. And while we’re at it why not give select committees the power of subpoena, as Congressional committees do in the United States? Or consider complete separation of powers.

There are over one hundred MPs in the Commons on the payroll vote (i.e. members of the Government expected to vote with the party whip). Why don’t we debate the merits of a legislature that is totally independent of the executive, as advocated by Nottingham North MP Graham Allen? At present I don’t agree with such an idea, but now is the time to consider all the options – even the most radical ones.

We also need to look at the kind of people who are elected to Parliament. The present House of Commons has very few independent-minded MPs, and too many who simply value ministerial office over properly scrutinising the Government. Some MPs have explicitly stated that they would never vote against their Party line. Frankly, anyone from any party who says that they would never vote against the whip under any circumstances should be barred from becoming an MP – you can’t represent your constituents as a mere party delegate. As the Labour MP John Grogan pointed out during the debate on the third runway, there isn’t a Conservative lobby and a Labour lobby – there’s an aye lobby and a no lobby. It’s a distinction that needs to be made far more strongly in the minds of many MPs

Finally, a word on primaries – another topic of recent debate. There’s a reason why celebrities and businesspeople and the rich are so enthusiastic about primaries: They’re wealthy enough and well known enough to benefit from such a system. Can you imagine someone on an average or below average income being able to compete fairly in such a process? A system of primaries would also reduce the value of Labour Party membership to that of a simple supporters club. Members already have no real say over policy: that is stitched up by the leadership under the fig leaf of the National Policy Forum. The last real practical benefit of being a Labour member is the ability to choose one’s candidates in local and national elections.

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;}