Liberate MPs from their party shackles and give them a free vote A quarter of Italians voted for a party led by a comedian to represent them in parliament, and a quarter of voters in Eastleigh voted Ukip last week. It may be that this public defiance has no more meaning than the election of a man in a monkey suit as mayor of Hartlepool, or the occasional election of independent MPs in response to "sleaze" allegations or threatened hospital closure: but it may be more significant. Even if the Italians don't pride themselves on a quirky sense of humour like we Brits, they surely know just as well as we do how to stick two fingers up at a political class that seems too remote. Two thousand years ago, Caligula insulted the Senate by threatening to appoint his horse as consul; now it is the people who show their contempt for democratic institutions by sending comics to sit in them. Many voters in Eastleigh clearly wanted to encourage more emphasis on Europe, immigration and the cost of living. In the midst of a chronic economic malaise it is also natural to expect worry and unease in the minds of the public. Pay has stood still for too long while prices keep rising, and even those whose backs aren't up against the wall already are impatient for a return to growth and economic stability. David Cameron is right to eschew panic reactions to mid-term by-elections, but at the same time it would be unwise for any politician to ignore these expressions of public frustration. Government and Tory HQ will be thinking hard about improved direction and clarity of message, but I want to ask an even more fundamental question. Might we be experiencing a more profound collapse of trust - not just doubt about current policy prescriptions, but doubt about the nature of our democracy? Certainly, there has been the most remarkable loss of confidence in almost all of our institutions. Parliamentary expenses were ahead of the game. The banks; the press; the police; the BBC; the Roman Catholic Church - now even the reputation of the NHS is going through the mill. After the Diamond Jubilee, only the Monarchy appears to command the respect and affection of the nation. Our representative democracy depends on voters putting their trust in someone to go to Westminster on their behalf, exercising judgment in the interests of their constituents and the nation. Fifty years ago, in a time of Cold War and massive ideological divides, most people were prepared to treat a party badge as a sufficient indication of where their MP would stand. In today's world of email and instant information, people are more demanding. They notice that candidates who proclaim their determination to make good law and to hold government to account become MPs who habitually do the whips" bidding. If they are sufficiently capable or ambitious (or flexible), they go on to be ministers who will then defend the party line at all times, even when everyone knows they disagree with it. It isn't that you elect weak, stupid or craven individuals. Surveys suggest that most people have a high opinion of their own MP - it is Parliament collectively that is regarded as a den of thieves. As the AV referendum showed, it isn't the electoral system: it's what your MP does when he or she gets to Westminster. This is the nub of the problem. Your well-intentioned representative arrives in Parliament and encounters a system that discourages independent thought and rewards point-scoring. The picture isn't unremittingly bleak. Perhaps the one positive legacy of Gordon Brown's government was the Wright Committee on Parliamentary Reform, which led to stronger select committees - elected by MPs, not appointed by the whips - and Parliament free to choose some of its own debates for the first time in living memory. These procedural changes can sound as dry as dust, but so far the omens are good: it was this change that allowed Parliament to vote on holding an EU referendum and on stopping votes for prisoners. Both of these have changed Government policy and show that Parliament really is close to the people we represent. Of course, governments always like to control things, but the irony is that by letting go, by freeing MPs to speak for the people, it would be doing itself a favour. Proper scrutiny and challenge makes for better government and fewer unnecessary mistakes. If Mr Cameron wants to prove that he really understands the frustration of the British people, he should take this process further. The Commons should be given responsibility for scheduling all its own business, and for choosing the committees that scrutinise Bills. The excellent select committees should be given real teeth, and "free" votes without a party whip should be held more often. If MPs are treated as adults capable of making our own decisions, we might surprise you and behave like adults. The true message of Eastleigh is that in Britain, as in other democracies, people have been losing faith in their institutions. It isn't the people who have got this wrong; it is politicians who fail to understand the need to make our democracy more responsive. Graham Brady is MP for Altrincham and Sale West, and Chairman of the 1922 Committee