For a brief moment, the cloud over the allowance system in Parliament threatened a silver lining. Briefly, the argument moved away from moats into the quality of British parliamentary government. David Cameron and Nick Clegg made speeches about dispersing power and the Prime Minister asked Tony Wright, MP, the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, to consider how the power of Parliament might be fortified. Mr Wright is about to report and his conclusions may yet be the most welcome consequence of this whole sorry saga.

It is likely that Mr Wright’s committee will propose a set of changes that, together, draw power from the executive and return it to institutions in Parliament. For example, they will propose that Parliament gains greater say over its own timetable, which is, at present, entirely determined by the government of the day. Some public petitions, which are routinely ignored by Parliament, may be granted a debate in the chamber and a response by a minister, at the request of an MP.

Among the developed democracies, Britain has a uniquely centralised political executive, so anything that lets the people in should be welcomed. Indeed, this ought to be the start of a process by which power vacates Westminster and settles at the lowest appropriate level.

Mr Wright’s committee is also expected to propose that select committee chairmen be elected by a secret ballot of the relevant MPs. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, for example, is conventionally drawn from the opposition benches, so only opposition MPs would vote. This would be a welcome improvement to the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise legislation, of which British governments are far too fond. It would also reduce the power of the party whips to determine the composition of committees, which, at the moment, makes the important job of scrutiny a function of party favour.

Indeed, it would be good politics to demand that the reforms go farther. Select committees are still not really an alternative career structure within the Palace of Westminster. Members are still, with some honourable exceptions, either on their way up and out or on their way down and out. Chairmen should be paid a ministerial rate and committees need proper research back-up. There are far too many junior ministers on the government payroll. Some of that expense could be redistributed to improve the committees.

When committees are serviced well there is no question that government is better. Some of the best scrutiny of legislation has come from the ad hoc joint committees of the House. This practice should be the norm rather than the exception. The sacrifice of a little speed in the parliamentary process would be a small price for more rigorous scrutiny of Bills.

The grip of the executive in Parliament is very strong. Releasing it is an aspiration of most opposition leaders that they mysteriously forget once the advantage of the grip is theirs. The Prime Minister should welcome the conclusions of the report he commissioned and, far from grudging acceptance, he should then go farther still and challenge David Cameron to dissent. The only sound of complaint would come from the party whips on both sides, which would be a sign that something good had just happened.