Parliamentary Representation

On her blog last week, Zehra Zaidi highlighted recently proposed plans by David Cameron, in an interview with the Financial Times, to cut the number of MPs in the House of Commons.

The FT article briefly notes that Cameron wishes to cut the size of the Commons by at least ten per cent, which in real terms would account for around sixty MPs and could lead to the axing of a number of safe Labour seats.

In spite of the supposed independence of the Boundaries and Electoral Commissions, as Zehra Zaidi rightly remarks, Labour has helped create a substantial imbalance within the system over the past ten years – which of course has been to their benefit.

Therefore, as all political parties that obtain power attempt, in some way or other, to use the system to garner electoral benefits, it’s not that surprising that the Conservatives have now said they will try to rebalance the system if elected.

However, these proposals also come after a notable increase in the number of reports over previous years highlighting the decreasing legislative workload of MPs. For example, The Daily Telegraph noted back in October 2007 that:

MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament.

In the Financial Times, David Cameron is also quoted as having said that in his efforts to cut public spending he thought:

The House of Commons could do the job that it does with 10 per cent fewer MPs without any trouble at all.

Back in 2007, when The Telegraph originally covered the increase of holidays for MPs the Chief Executive of the Taxpayer’s Alliance, Matthew Elliott was quick to wade in and comment, saying:

A three-month holiday for MPs is a ridiculous luxury, especially since the politicians have also been awarding themselves larger pensions and higher pay. But having MPs sitting in Parliament for shorter periods may at least mean fewer new taxes and regulations.

The question we should really be asking ourselves though is why our MPs have so little to do, and why it is that David Cameron could possibly propose to do away with ten percent of them and still maintain the same level of output?

Well, you don’t have to look far to discover the answer. With approximately eighty percent of our legislation originating in Brussels, our Westminster Parliament has simply become a rubber stamping institute through which EU law passes without amendment or debate. Then there are EU Regulations which are decided on in Brussels and don’t even have to pass through our Parliament to be enacted.

This is why the comment by Matthew Elliott is so ridiculous. It doesn’t really matter for how long our own MPs sit in Parliament or how many of them there are these days, the volume of legislation coming from the EU, which we cannot prevent, will arrive and be passed into our law regardless.

There are alternatives of course. Back in June of last year, Conservative MP Peter Lilley proposed that all MPs should have their pay cut if they gave away powers to the European Union. Such a system might actually bring home to MPs the importance of the powers and responsibilities that have been entrusted to them by the British people.

Then there is our direct financial contribution to the European Union which amounts to roughly some £14bn an annum – far greater if you take into account the costs that EU legislation and regulations impose on us. Therefore, the costs saved from leaving the European Union would far outweigh the comparably insignificant sum of money Mr Cameron would supposedly like to save in reducing the number of Members of Parliament.

Sadly though, it appears that once again Mr Cameron has chosen to tackle the symptom rather than the cause of the problem in our Parliamentary system.

Post Comment: