Time for MPs to be true to their word

THE EVE of Guy Fawkes Night seems an appropriate date for Sir Christopher Kelly's report on the reform of MPs' expenses.

Fawkes was part of a group of Catholic conspirators who planned to blow up the Houses of Parliament in the Gunpowder Plot on November 5th, 1605.

Public mistrust of MPs, even before the expenses scandal, has led to Fawkes being jokingly labelled as the last man to enter Parliament with "honourable intentions".

But now, the public will hope - nay, expect - this current bunch of representatives to do the right thing by looking beyond their own self-interest.

Sir Christopher has done all he can. He has made his recommendations and gained the explicit support from the party leaders.

But it is up to all of the MPs to be as good as their leaders' word and accept the proposals "in full".

After all, Sir Christopher could have made life a whole lot harder for them - especially given the furore which followed The Telegraph's revelations in April.

Instead, he said he took a "cold, hard look at what went wrong" and came up with what he considers to be "reasonable and fair" solutions.

Sir Christopher's plans certainly seem "reasonable and fair" to me with some of the new rules intentionally given a transition period.

In his statement yesterday, he said he would allow mortgage claims to continue for the duration of the next Parliament.

Meanwhile, the nepotism of employing relatives will be phased out over a five-year period.

Sir Christopher also recommended an end to resettlement grants of up to £64,000 for MPs who voluntarily step down. But, again, this would only come into force after the next general election.

He suggested that the practice of "flipping" homes for capital gains tax purposes should be outlawed.

He also says that the communications allowance of £10,400 a year should be binned, as it is often used for nothing more than self-publicity.

But there has been no outright ban on MPs having a second job, provided it is restricted to "reasonable limits".

Sir Christopher has proposed an extension of a rule which currently prevents MPs within 20 miles of Parliament from claiming for a second home to 12 other members.

These additional MPs live a little further out but in fact have quicker journey times to Westminster due to geographic location and transport links.

Even this was not as bad news as MPs had feared. Leaks had suggested the cut-off time would be an hours' journey from Westminster, which would have implicated many more of the 66 members who are affected.

All of the proposals will now be assessed by the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), led by Sir Ian Kennedy.

But, assuming they are accepted by IPSA, surely no right-minded member would set about opposing any of the suggestions above.

Already, however, there were groans from MPs when it was announced that Sir Ian would be paid up to £100,000 in his new role.

This may be more than their basic salary, but they must understand that the time for members to self-regulate has long since passed by.

Now is the time for MPs to be true to their word and show a level of honesty at the House arguably not seen for over 400 years.

So much for the "summer of rage"

AS THE late September sunshine gives way to the darkening nights and the chilly autumn winds, it seems a good time to reflect.

Back in February, there were dire warnings from the police of mass protests from the general public in a "summer of rage" faced with a deepening recession.

Superintendent David Hartshorn wrote in the Guardian that established activists "would be good at motivating people" who would not normally protest.

Supt Hartshorn added: "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions changes that... Suddenly there is the opportunity to for people to mass protest.

"We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'."

But, if nothing else, the aftermath of the G20 meeting in April centred on the tactics of the police, not the protestors.

While there were undoubtedly a few numpties in the crowd, who put out a window and looted the Royal Bank of Scotland, the decision of the police to employ kettling tactics on a 'peace camp' was rightly condemned for being excessive.

Worse followed in the days which followed after footage emerged of an apparently innocent man, Ian Tomlinson, being knocked to the ground by an officer. He died of a heart attack.

There was also video footage of officers failing to display ID numbers on their uniform, despite this being a requirement under Met Police rules.

Just a few weeks after the G20 controversy, the MPs were then involved in a huge scandal regarding their expenses.

The story unfolded in daily instalments, brought to us by the Daily Telegraph.

While the vast majority of us suspected that politicians were bending the rules as much as they could, I am sure I was not alone in being stunned by the extent of their cheek.

Flipping homes, avoiding Capital Gains Tax, and claiming for anything from swimming pools and moats to trouser presses, dog food and - of course - soft-core pornography. It was quite astonishing stuff.

But, again, the public response was markedly restrained.

There were some letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in the newspapers and a kicking at the ballot box for the major parties in the European elections which caused a chaotic reshuffle in the government.

But nothing more than that - it would seem that the mass unemployed, now at 2.47 million, have largely suffered in silence.

For the rest of the summer, there have been the traditional moans about exams getting easier and MPs having too much time off - nothing out of the ordinary, though.

If anything, the police warnings in February just go to show how easy it is nowadays to put out a scaremongering story in the current society.

Snouts in the trough

The Daily Telegraph has gained the biggest scoop of 2009 so far with their ongoing series of articles pillorying MPs' from all parties for their ludicrous expenses claims.

It is not usually my newspaper of choice but I must commend Britain's most popular 'quality' newspaper for bringing traditional expose journalism to the forefront.

It has also avoided making this a party political issue and slaughtered each of the main parties for their spurious claims for dog food, swimming pool maintenance and light bulbs.

Of course, some MPs have acted with disgust that the newspaper has broken the story now, rather than waiting until July when Parliament was due to publish the details.

Arguably the most notable critic has been House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin.

He has come under fire and now potentially faces a vote of no confidence for trying to block any publication of expenses and criticising MPs who have backed The Telegraph's revelations.

After all, how dare the pesky free press uncover details tantamount to fraud from our elected representatives before the coming elections on June 4!

***

While many MPs are correct to say they have acted within the existing rules, they should have realised the problem was that these rules were generous at best.

And so, after their cross-party competition to see who could make themselves most unpopular, the humbled MPs are now falling over each other to apologise and make repayments.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has requested all claims since the last election should be independently reviewed.

And Conservative leader David Cameron has even threatened to withdraw the whip from any Tory MP who refuses to pay back the money gained from "excessive" claims.

This would seem to leave the former agriculture minister Douglas Hogg in an awkward position as he says he has acted "within the letter and the spirit" of the law.

Despite this, he has admitted to claiming over £14,000 for a housekeeper in his country residence.

And he included with his expenses claims the cost of having the moat cleared, piano tuned and stable lights fixed according to The Telegraph.

In the Labour ranks, immigration minister Phil Woolas has threatened to sue the newspaper after it was suggested he was reimbursed for panty liners, tampons, nappies and a ladies' blouse.

And Labour peer Lord Foulkes, who was an MP until 2005, also took a swipe at the media when he appeared on BBC News.

During the interview, he demanded to know the salary of BBC presenter Carrie Gracie.

When she revealed that it was £92,000, he said she was being paid "nearly twice as much as an MP to talk nonsense" and undermine democracy.

I cannot agree with Lord Foulkes that The Telegraph's work (and media coverage of it) has undermined democracy as the MPs seem to have done a good enough job of ruining the institution of Parliament themselves.

But it was fascinating to hear the presenter reveal her salary.

As another journalism blogger, FleetStreetBlues has pointed out, BBC presenters and national newspaper writers tend to enjoy handsome pay packets.

But this is in sharp contrast to local newspaper reporters who struggle on an annual salary £14,000 for long and sometimes unsociable hours.

And the low pay of the regional hack makes a complete mockery of the parliamentary motion, signed by no fewer than 22 MPs, which urges journalists to disclose their income.