Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Thanks to the Hoon/Hewitt fandango on Wednesday (which Nick Robinson has covered), I've only just got round to looking at the (IPSA) consultation paper on the MPs expenses system.

And if you listen carefully as you turn the pages, you can hear the thud, yowl, flutter and squark of dozens of cats being cast amongst the pigeons.

IPSA Chairman Sir Ian Kennedy wastes no time in insisting that responsibility for designing a new system falls to him and his new organisation.

Which rather begs the question, what was the point of Sir Christopher Kelly's earlier review on the same issue? Sir Christopher, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, designed a new parliamentary expenses system of his very own, and a few weeks ago the conventional wisdom among MPs was that they had to take his pretty exacting proposals on the chin.

Sir Ian turns out to be reluctant to do so, and one consequence is that it now seems unlikely that an independently designed and administered new system will be in place for the start of the next Parliament.

That, in turn, shuts down the prospect of making the kind of clean break from the whole miserable expenses saga that parliamentarians yearn for, where hundreds of squeaky-clean new MPs throng the Commons and the moat clearing, the adult movies, the duck houses and the bathplugs are all fading memories.

What with the Legg review making MPs repay claims seen as excessive, and then the Kelly proposals, we see the prospect of a third wave of expenses angst with the same battles being fought.

Bad news?

Now Sir Ian is re-opening some of the most contentious issues: the consultation document still proposes a ban on the use of public money to pay family members to work for MPs, including those currently employed. Bad news for all those spouses toiling away on behalf of the other halves.

But it also seeks views on whether the ban on employing them should be imposed, after all. Or whether less stringent controls could be imposed instead. The consultation is bound to produce some very strong representations for watering down that part of the Kelly recommendations.

Then there's the second home issue. No return to paying mortgage interest on MPs' second homes (although some MPs have argued that it would be cheaper than renting, in many cases) but a simple rule that MPs whose constituencies contain a station within London Transport Zones 1-6 won't be entitled to support for a second home - bringing the instant complaint that some MPs within 20 minutes travel of Westminster will therefore be entitled to support. IPSA say Parliament should decide whether to claw back any gains made from the sale of second homes on which mortgage interest had been funded by the taxpayer.

MPs should normally be expected to claim for standard, not first class rail travel, and they should only be entitled to claim for expenses for first class travel in exceptional circumstances. Claims for air travel within the UK would be for economy class only. There are already grumbles that people who book in advance can get a first class ticket for the same price as a standard one, and that the system should allow MPs to take advantage of that, just like anyone else in the country.

And you can expect hundreds of similar micro-gripes to emerge, as the detail is studied.

There's a helpful little section at the back of the consultation document tabulating Kennedy and Kelly's different proposals, covering their approaches to all these questions, and many more. But it's not the detail that bothers many MPs, but the fact that all these issues have been re-opened again...and that any divergence from Kelly will almost certainly be represented as a watering down of controls on their expenses. Just what they need in the run-up to the election.

And even after the next election the hits will keep on coming - the document promises IPSA will "consult widely" on the appropriate remuneration and resourcing of MPs.

A big pay rise? More staff?

After the last couple of years, would any government dare?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?