Smash hit

Essentially it is the age-old problem: does the end justify the means? The Labour Government, by denying a free vote to the elected MPs, is denying them their right to represent their constituents as they see fit and the exercise of their moral judgment, either to agree with the Bill or to refuse it.

The House of Commons is supposed to be supreme, and should not be subservient to Mr Brown.

T. S. Callaghan

Brechin, Angus

Sir, Dennis MacShane, the former Labour minister, has recently said: “If every difficult issue with ethical implications is a matter of free votes, then democracy, Parliament and the purposes of government becomes meaningless.”

I think many people would feel that the opposite is closer to the truth — if MPs were better able to vote according to their own lights, parliamentary debates would be improved, as would the dignity of Parliament as a whole. If MPs were respected more within Parliament, voters might respect them more from outside. The parliamentary process might appear at times to be less tidy, but the result would actually be more effective government.

David Martin

Topsham, Exeter

Sir, In suggesting that “Catholics in politics have to act according to their Catholic convictions” (report, March 24), Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor appears to have overlooked the fact that the primary responsibility of an elected MP is towards his or her constituents.

If personal faith or conviction is to be regarded in this way, it is essential that all those seeking a place in Parliament should declare their intentions in pre-election literature so that voters may make their own feelings clear.

Graeme Lutman

Goffs Oak, Herts

Explore Letters

• Feedback