For all the pageantry, Parliament is in peril

What's wrong with Parliament? Not a novel query, certainly, but one worth revisiting on the day the Ruritanian rituals of the State Opening and Queen's Speech remind us of the disparity between the dignity of its ceremonial and the indignity of its impotence.

It is depressingly easy to see what is wrong with Parliament. Thanks to the diverse misdemeanours of a relatively small number of MPs lumped together in the public mind under the label "sleaze", the House of Commons has sunk to a depressingly low ebb in public esteem. No wonder there was such a lamentably poor turn-out on 7 June.

Nor are the public impressed with the way parliament holds ministers to account. Some of the more conscientious MPs ­ Gwyneth Dunwoody, Tony Wright, Kenneth Clarke and David Davis ­ agree. The Hansard Society has produced a thoughtful report suggesting practical ways to redress the balance. We know what's wrong with Parliament and how to put it right. Two or three ideas stand out.

First, the powers of the party whips over the membership of select committees in favour of the pliable must end. Diane Abbott's removal from the Treasury Select Committee was a disgraceful episode. Leaks by committee members to ministers are all too frequent. The obvious way to restore select committees' integrity is to choose their members by a secret ballot of MPs.

Second, there must be a way of providing a career path for MPs other than the ministerial ladder. Given the impossibility of providing government jobs for all Labour's bloated Parliamentary party, and the distance the Tories are from power, this could be a realistic move. Salaries for select committee chairmen would be a start. But they need powers to call witnesses and evidence, just as their American congressional counterparts do. The Scott report highlighted how ministers too easily evade proper scrutiny.

And, given the range of activity now centred on the No 10-Cabinet Office matrix, there should be a committee that deals specifically with the work of the Prime Minister. Mr Blair should be periodically subjected to sustained interrogation, and not just by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys.

None of these ideas need destroy a government's ability to legislate or honour manifesto commitments; but they ought to prevent recurrences of episodes like the poll tax, universally acknowledged as a calamitous failure of parliamentary scrutiny. On a narrower agenda, they might remake the career of the Leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook. He could build a formidable reputation if he stood up to Mr Blair's control freakery, especially of he allied himself with Speaker Martin, who has, sadly, shown little interest so far in reform. We are not optimistic. For now, and for all the lush pageantry, Parliament remains in peril.