A year ago a constituent complained to me that there was far too much on my website about expenses! So forgive me, as once again, I return to the MP’s additional costs allowance which is supposed to reimburse MPs for staying away from home on parliamentary business.
How on earth did we get into this mess?
Two different worlds have collided, with the public outraged at the way taxpayers’ money has been spent whist, at the same time, some MPs are equally outraged that details of what they consider their private expenditure, which they fought to keep secret, have been subjected to public gaze, ridicule and disapproval.
The simple answer is that the public see MPs’ allowances as expenses to be properly justified and audited; as taxpayers’ money they believe they have every right to know exactly what it was spent on and why. For many MPs, however, their perspective is quite different: the allowance was created to avoid having to give a politically unpopular pay rise to MPs, notwithstanding the recommendations of a review body. As the allowance was instead of the recommended pay rise, so they thought they ought to be able to treat it like pay, and what is more, it was none of anyone else’s business what they spent their pay on.
I believe this history stretching back decades is at the root of the problem and has spawned a culture that has treated public money as a private entitlement.
Rule changes and attempts to tighten the system over the years have failed to overcome that culture. Furthermore, the rules seem to have been applied very differently on some occasions than on others. Sometimes the authorities in the Fees Office appear to have acted more as facilitators ensuring members got the full allowance to which they were entitled, rather than the guardian of public money and checking up rigorously accordingly.
Now all the frogs that are in the bog are hatching out and MPs live in fear, constantly dreading a call from the Daily Telegraph. Ten days ago there was a bit of camaraderie and gallows humour. Now, however, it is just despair. Nadine Dorries has described the atmosphere at Westminster as suicidal and blamed the press; even the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to have taken pity on the plight of MPs. I agree that the situation is desperate, but I cannot see why we should escape judgement, after all, we’ve had it coming.
I recall my first visit to the Fees Office when the system of allowances was explained to me. I asked for the precise definition of ‘main home’ and the answer came “Mr Swayne, your main home is wherever you say it is”. Last year I was planning to move to a smaller flat that would be less expensive to maintain. The problem was that previously I had renovated the kitchen in my existing London residence. I contacted the Fees Office to ask how much of the renovation costs I should repay. I was told I was not required to repay any of it. I insisted on an arrangement to repay it all. I am glad I did so, it will at the very least, be a fig leaf to hide behind when the Telegraph comes to call. As it happens, when I did move it cost me roughly £10,000. The absurdity is that according to the rules I could have charged all that to the taxpayer -calm down! I didn’t, but the point is that I could have done, and the reports indicate that many did do so in similar circumstances.
Where do we go from here?
Clearly those who are suspected of fraud should be prosecuted and, if guilty, sent to jail. As for the rest, Gordon Brown has said all the accounts will be the subject of a thorough independent audit to see who has broken the rules .I think this misses the point. The problem is not that MPs broke the rules, mostly they didn't. The problem is the rules themselves. Therefore, a quasi judicial or administrative process will not resolve the issue: if you stay within the letter of the rules you cannot be found guilty even if you flouted the spirit of them and milked the system. That is why I think David Cameron’s "Star Chamber" will be much more effective. This is because it is a ‘kangaroo court’ that does not respect legal niceties. Whatever the rules were, it will be able to say “this just doesn't smell right, so pay it back or you are out” or even “pay it back AND you are out".
For the future, many constituents have written to me demanding that Parliament provide its own modest accommodation. This is a superficially attractive idea but I fear it would be too costly. Leaving aside the enormous initial costs, the security bill alone would be prohibitively expensive. Given, that the committee on Standards in Public Life are on the case I will not dwell on the details of a replacement until they report their findings. However, what is very urgent is a general election. The scandal has cost Parliament its authority. There is an overwhelming impression of drift. A new mandate from the people for change is essential. The notion that an election should be put off until profound constitutional change has been enacted is to fly in the face of both logic and the public anger. This parliament has no mandate for constitutional change. If fact, after the last couple of weeks, it has no mandate left for anything at all. |
