A cosy club that continues to set its own rules

LEADING ARTICLE

PARLIAMENT

The long list of recommendations unveiled yesterday by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee was clearly designed to give the impression that the parliamentary stables are finally being swept out. One proposal that has already grabbed headlines is for MPs to be prevented from using public money to furnish and renovate their homes. This would spell the end of the notorious "John Lewis" shopping list, of which MPs have made such extensive use over the years. Another suggested reform is for members representing outer London constituencies to lose half of their second home allowance.

There is also to be better policing of the system. "External professionals" will carry out "financial health checks" on the costs of running MPs' offices. Every year, a fifth of MPs will face "spot checks" on their claims by the National Audit Office. Then there are a host of minor curbs, such as new car mileage limits linked to the size of constituencies, and a freezing of communications allowances.

But the size and detail of the list is rather misleading. The truth is that there is almost as much scope for abuse under the proposed system as there is under the present one. For instance, the 24,000 additional costs allowance to cover the expense of MPs staying away from home is to be replaced with a 19,600 overnight expenses allowance. It is difficult to identify much of a difference between the two. The new rules would do nothing to prevent MPs using these payments to fund their mortgages.

Everyone agrees that MPs with constituencies far from the capital need a base near Westminster. But why should they enjoy all the capital gains from properties bought, effectively, with public money? The committee rejected the idea of building or buying a residential block of flats for MPs in central London as "neither feasible nor affordable". This seems a rather questionable calculation. A one-off investment would certainly be expensive, but it would surely be more than offset by the eradication of future expenses claims.

The clampdown on other living costs also leaves much to be desired. The committee recommended that the 400 a month food allowance for MPs is brought to an end, only for it to be replaced with a 30 a day "subsistence allowance" up to a maximum of 4,600 every year, and all claimable without receipts. So much for transparency.

There is even a salary increase for certain MPs smuggled in with these proposals. The committee suggested that a supplement for those representing inner London constituencies should rise from 2,916 a year to 7,500 to "reflect the extra cost of living and working in the capital". Will other public sector workers in London receive a similar pay rise? Don't bet on it.

This report does very little to address the fact that public trust in Parliament has been badly dented by recent revelations of expenses abuse. And MPs still seem unable to accept that they need to change their ways. Prising details of expenses claims from them has been like extracting blood from a stone. When one considers that MPs are just about the only set of public employees in the country that set their own pay, such furtiveness cannot possibly be excused.

Nor is this merely a question of money. The details we reveal today of what is surely an abuse of the House of Lords researchers pass system merely reinforces the image of Parliament as a cosy club that fixes rules to suit its own members, rather than the public interest. What we needed from this expenses evaluation process was a radical break with the old arrangements. What we got was a blueprint for more of the same.

Copyright c 2008 Independent Newspapers UK Limited. All rights owned or operated by The Independent.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.