The debate around MPs’ expenses has struck a chord with an unsympathetic public – but MPs’ roles need more fundamental reform argues Graham Allen MP.
“At a time when living costs are rising for families across the country and politicians of all political inclinations are seemingly held in such low regard, the issue of MPs’ pay and expenses has struck a chord with voters. Despite relative falls in our wages over the past few years, and the acceptance of 95% of the reforms proposed by the Committee for Standards in Public Life, the media characterisation of the Westminster ‘gravy train’ will doubtless continue.
The public have a right to be concerned – allegations about misuse of public money by a tiny minority of MPs are serious – but they deserve a measured response from the guardians of public standards. With this in mind, I was disappointed to hear Sir Christopher Kelly’s remarks (on BBC Radio) within hours of Thursday’s vote. Sir Christopher, a man whose post is certainly not subject to the rigours of democratic scrutiny, stated that MPs’ were ‘retreating’ and that this was ‘in many ways worse than doing nothing at all.’
I would hope that the head of the Committee for Standards in Public Life would abide by some basic standards in public life himself. I wonder if it’s possible for me to report him to himself? Rushing to the first available microphone to relieve himself of his opinion, rather than soberly and thoughtfully reflecting on the context of events is not a good omen. Sir Christopher has never spoken to me, or the vast majority of my parliamentary colleagues. He has not taken the time to investigate what is required for an MP to serve their constituents, at Westminster and at home, 7 days a week. A little less time being a media ‘rent-a-quote’ and a little more time finding out the facts directly from MPs themselves might have represented a more fruitful approach.
Christopher Kelly says he is “baffled” by MPs votes on expenses yesterday, but I am even more baffled by his lack of consultation. To follow the media herd on the “John Lewis list”, which most MPs had not heard of, let alone claimed from, until the recent BBC campaign is not up to the standard we should expect.
I have always believed that Parliament must set an example in demonstrating complete transparency in all of its financial affairs. Having reached this point, I believe that the only way for parliamentarians to win back public respect is to demand proper clarity and reform of their roles as public servants. MPs are hopelessly weak in comparison with the executive in Number 10, or indeed the media. Who can blame the public for reacting cynically to MPs’ attempts at financial reform when they cannot even elect their own select committees, evict those living illegally on Parliament Square or demand a debate on the rush to war in Iraq?
Gordon Brown used his maiden speech as Prime Minister to underline his credentials as a constitutional reformer. Amongst the basket of worthy policies to increase confidence and participation in our democratic process there was one glaring omission: the constitutional role of MPs. Without clearly codifying our powers and responsibilities it will be impossible to rebuild public trust in politicians.
I have long argued in favour of a simplified and completely transparent system of allowances for MPs and the removal of our right to vote on our own pay. Given the events of the last week, these reforms might represent just the tip of the iceberg. Employees in the real world whose remuneration package is to be reviewed also expect a reassessment and definition of what the job is, its accountabilities and its effectiveness. MPs should be no different. When Sir Christopher speaks about that he will have set a standard in public life to which we should all aspire.
