More on expenses
After the pre-Budget report, back to the real substance of politics today, with the release of .
Details of MPs' second home claims for the last financial year have been published, revealing, for example, that Ken Clarke, claimed for "two tiled cartoons in bathroom". And that Elliot Morley claimed Β£12.90 for a "faithful plastic hawk". I gather it's something for carrying cement on, not a comedy bird. Meanwhile, Chancellor Alistair Darling claimed Β£48 for redecorating his front door, after someone wrote something "uncomplimentary" on it.
Meanwhile expenses claims for peers - who, of course, are not paid a salary - have also .
And as if that were not enough expenses-related merriment for any rational being, the government has just published a shopping list of changes to the law required to implement Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations on cleaning up the Commons expenses system.
You'll recall that ministers seemed a little wounded when opposition MPs said a lot of legislative changes would be needed...now they've agreed that a fair few will be required. Some are rather fiddly, but here are the main ones:
* Power to make deductions from MPs' resettlement grants when they leave the Commons - presumably to recoup any outstanding repayments.
* Returning responsibility for maintaining the register of financial interests and the associated code of conduct from IPSA, to the House of Commons.
* The independent setting of MPs' pay and pensions should be entrenched in primary legislation in the same way as expenses. IPSA should therefore be given statutory responsibility for setting MPs' pay levels and overseeing MPs' pensions as well as for dealing with expenses. The government says this had originally been in the IPSA bill, but was removed "after representations made in the intensive cross party talks" on the issue. The press release from Harriet Harman's office adds, rather archly, that "now there is a clear consensus" the government will now bring in legislation to put IPSA in charge of pay and conditions.
* IPSA should be able to appoint its own "arms-length" compliance officer, who should be able to conduct an investigation on his or her own initiative, at the request of the independent regulator, or in response to a complaint from a member of the public or an MP.
* Power to compel MPs to cooperate with IPSA, including through the provision of relevant information. Power to require the repayment of wrongly paid or wrongly claimed sums, with associated costs if appropriate. And the right to impose, subject to safeguards, its own non-parliamentary sanctions for breaches of the expenses rules, including financial penalties. There had been worries about effectively bypassing the Standards and Privileges Committee - but they will still backstop very serious cases, especially involving false declarations.
* Ensuring the Speaker's Committee on IPSA should include three lay members from outside Parliament who have not previously been MPs or peers. They should be chosen through the official public appointments process and formally approved by the House.
* IPSA should continue to publish, at least quarterly, every single claim for reimbursement by MPs plus the receipts or documentary evidence. Not just for claims actually reimbursed.
In the slightly longer term, the Kelly Report recommendation that "all candidates at parliamentary elections should publish, at nomination, a register of interests including the existence of other paid jobs and whether they intend to continue to hold them if elected".
The Ministry of Justice is working on that, and guidelines should be ready in time for the next election.
And a ban on Westminster MPs also sitting in the devolved legislatures should be brought in before their next elections in May 2011.
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
Comments
or to comment.