Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Next Thursday's Commons debate on MPs' expenses is beginning to look like a perfect storm in the making.

Not only will MPs debate motion regretting the "high costs and inadequacies" of the new Commons expenses watchdog, IPSA, and calling for time to be made available for MPs to amend the legislation which set it up, if the system is not improved - and not only will the latest helping of details on MPs expenses be published - but MPs will also debate the motion objected to last week, which would allow the publication of details of expense complaints not upheld, or "rectified".

So the public will be able to judge whether IPSA has been too soft on some complaints, or has allowed any MPs to quietly repay overclaimed expenses. Standards and Privileges Committee Chairman Kevin Barron was visibly astonished when the word "object" was shouted - after efforts had been made to ensure all the known awkward squaddies would not block the measure, and S&P Committee members are a little miffed that they will now have to attend a debate on the issue, to get it through, not least because they all thought it was a straightforward and innocuous move to increase transparency.

And now an extra, piquant ingredient has been added to this simmering brew - - which its critics claim demonstrates that it is far more expensive than the system it replaced. Six months into the new Parliament, you can still hardly walk 10 feet in Westminster without encountering an MP with a grievance against IPSA, although now there also tend to be sardonic comments about what the parliamentarians call their "current charm offensive".

It really wouldn't surprise me if Mr Afriyie's motion is passed and time has to be provided to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act, if IPSA fails to cut its costs and cut the administrative burden it places on MPs and their staff.

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