Sort out MPs’ expenses once and for all
Posted by Andrew Adams on April 28, 2009
Filed Under New Labour, Politics |
In the least surprising development since Allen Stanford turned out to be a bit dodgy, it seems that Gordon Brown’s plan to reform MPs’ expenses has backfired on him. One really has to wonder what he was thinking of - the weird Max Headroom style video was a bad enough start, then he failed to consult the leaders of the other major parties which was both wrong both in principle as this really is a matter on which there should be cross party agreement and tactically as it made it much more unlikely that his plans would be voted through by MPs. Maybe this was part of his plan, to get the Tories to oppose him so that he could accuse them of being on the side of those MPs who were abusing the system. Unfortunately for him he obviously didn’t bank on the fact that his own MPs would be equally unimpressed by his proposals. And then there was the proposal for a £150 attendance allowance, the idea which received the most ridicule of all. This was an idea copied from, of all places, the European Parliament which is the TGV of gravy trains whereas by comparison the Commons is the DLR. All in all it’s another cock up and another nail in his coffin.
Anyway, there is a serious issue here and a watered down version of the proposals will still be passed, while the matter of housing allowances has been referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life which is conducting its own enquiry into MPs expenses. Of course that should have been done in the first place and makes Brown’s announcement last week look even more like political expediency. So what should be done? Well firstly it is essential that the distinction between salary and expenses is tightly drawn. Expenses are those costs which a person unavoidably incurs in the course of their employment and for which they should be reimbursed, the principle being that they neither profit nor lose from the process. Any new arrangements will have to reflect this principle if they are to get the approval of the public - the reason we are in this mess is that MPs saw (and were reportedly encouraged to see) the expenses system as a way of supplementing their income and although many were principled enough not to abuse the system there were undoubtedly some who filled their boots (the extent of which will become more apparent when their receipts are published in full). This is why the worst possible idea would be to increase MPs salaries as compensation for them losing the second home allowance as is mooted here. There may or may not be a case for increasing MPs’ salaries, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but the question should be kept separate from the one of expenses.
The second home allowance has of course been completely discredited by recent events - it is obviously rotten and needs to be scrapped. MPs who unable to commute to the Commons should have to either used furnished rented accommodation or a hotel. The former may still lead to questions about what further expenses may be claimed other than rent but it should be possible to make sensible rules (bathplugs possibly, cable porn no).
One area which I believe Brown’s proposals will rightly address is MPs office and staffing costs. Only a few MPs abuse the system as blatantly as Derek Conway but the practice of employing family members on generous salaries does cause some public disquiet. MPs should be provided with office facilities paid for by the taxpayer and secretarial and other staff should be employed directly by the Commons authorities and subject to a fixed salary scale. The recruitment of staff should be handled jointly between a Commons recruitment manager, who would have to sign off any job offer and the MP themselves. There should not be a block on MPs hiring family members as long as the recruitment manager agrees they have the necessary qualifications.
Finally, not strictly connected to the expenses issue but still a concern, there is the question of MPs’ outside interests. Personally I don’t object to MPs supplementing their income with a bit of business on the side as long as it doesn’t impact on their role as an MP, either because it takes up their time or because it creates a conflict of interest. So if David Blunkett wants to write a column for The Sun that’s fine, but I have more of a problem with him taking a job with a company which is bidding for multi-million pound contracts from the department he used to head. Such appointments are already subject to approval so it would be easy enough to tighten the rules.
I don’t see the latter happening but let’s at least hope that once the various reviews, votes etc. are completed they will put in a sensible and suitably robust system in place for expenses which will have the confidence of the public. And that MPs realise the extent of the damage this issue is doing and don’t shoot themselves in the foot by sabotaging the plans as they did previously. This issue has been a running sore on our political system for too long and has to be resolved once and for all.
Comments
Leave a Reply