It is the public who elect us and pay for us. And it is the public who should be directly involved in deciding the future system of MPs’ expenses.
I am not talking about opinion polls, telephone votes or blogs. There is now a great deal of experience in the United Kingdom and elsewhere of innovative forms of public engagement. As Health Secretary, for instance, I commissioned a major public consultation, culminating in a 1000-strong Citizens’ Summit in Birmingham (recruited from the electoral register to be broadly representative of the public as a whole). We asked people about their experience of GPs, what they wanted from local health and care services, and whether they would still want more local services even if that meant fewer services in hospital. It all formed the basis for the White Paper, ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’.
The government used a similar approach on pensions and retirement. Local councils and the NHS make regular use of citizens’ panels. All of us have found this kind of public involvement far richer and more significant than the usual formal consultation process.
Large-scale public engagement of this kind could break through the present media firestorm, allowing the public to give a serious response to the serious issue of how to pay and resource MPs. I am sure that the public’s common sense would produce good solutions – but even more important, the very fact of public engagement would strengthen public confidence in the outcome.
We all have ideas about how to improve the present system. For instance, it seems to me quite wrong – and open to constant misinterpretation by the press – to treat MPs’ office expenses as a ‘personal allowance’.
Constituents are entitled to expect a proper service from their MP, including a reasonable constituency office. I believe the Australian parliament provides an office in each constituency for the member’s use. That is what we should do here.
I hope it would also be generally accepted that MPs who live in out of London constituencies should have somewhere to stay in London while the House of Commons is in session. Equally, I would hate to go back to the days when MPs whose family home was in London had to stay in a hotel or their agent’s spare room when in their constituency. But the system of paying an allowance for this purpose is comprehensively discredited. I would therefore take the same approach as for constituency offices, with parliament buying or renting appropriate furnished accommodation for MPs’ use.
Others will have their own proposals. For me, what matters most is not what system we end up with, but how we decide it. All of us who are MPs share the responsibility for this mess. When so much damage has been done to public confidence in parliament, we should ask the public to help us to put things right.
What a good idea. I am absolutely in support of the idea that we use a similar system to MP’s offices. How can we go forward on this?
With all its apparent good intentions, Hewitt’s approach has too limited a target, asnd too scanty an involvement. Such panels should be preparatory to a referendum, not the totality of public engagement. The juries, panels whatever can and should winnow suggestions and put perhaps three potential procedures for remuneration etc before the electorate as a whole, and only a procedure that achieved a majority of those voting AND a significant vote – say 40% of the electorate (remember George Cunningham in 1978?) should be adopted. to prevent temporizing on the part of MP’s, in the interim their allowances should be cut to the equivalent of the 1970 provision (and NO communications allowance at all, in case they try to argue at the expense of the public for feathering their own nests at the expense of the public.
BUT that is nowhere near enough.
Now is the time for all good men and wome to come to the aid of the party.
the pm programme thu 14 May reported not only 62 out of 63 Scunthorpe residents demanding that Elliott Morley be harshly sanctioned, but also a ‘call for blood’ and invocations of Oliver Cromwell. MPs whether through direct corruption (‘within the (MPs own) rules is irrelevant, if not adding insult to injury) or by prevarication and procrastination regarding reform, must be seen to be open to discipline not by other MPs (a sick joke) nor by the great and the good a la Nolan, Alasdair Grahame, Kelly etc, who are part of the same elite club system.
In order to show ‘leadership’ (what a tarnished notion) – in order to show a good example, in order to show that the 1996-7 boasting of ‘whiter than white – remember that ?- Bernie Ecclestone does! Labour Party bodies should be empowered to examine each and every Labour MP in this regard, starting with the biggest/most outrageous claimers and eventually getting down to the likes of John Mann and KelvynHopkins. Even these last have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide (remember that phrase?).
a Commission of NEC/NCC members should apply to MPs the same inquisition and the same sanctions that social security claimants are subjected to.
The alternative is a drastic increase in the BNP vote in June. UKIP, if we’re lucky. Did you notice what Farage has een saying over and over again: when our M(E)Ps do w rong, we expel them no question. Even Cameron has shown more guts in clapmping down on his rotten apples than Gordon has – consulting, enquiring….
We do not need resignations, we need expulsions. Resignation is what got Sir Fred Goodwin into a secure retirement. Ordinary employees who behaved like this get the sack, and the police too. All Labour MPs should be required to put themselves through this procedure; if they do not agree to do so within say three weeks (just before the June elections – we need to move fast) they should be expelled from the party promptly and their claims to be Labour MPs’should be treated with public derision, and the runner-up in their previous selection should be treated as the PPC until a proper re-selection procedure is set in place. (should they be permitted to put themselves up for relection? I’m neutral on that one…)
Hey, you MPs, lighten up, it’s a lot better than the stocks or the pillory – institutions which were prevalent in the era when being a MP meant showing courage and indepedendence.
Privilege, from being a defence against a tyrannical executive, has become a charter for gravy-training.
Lance the Great Wen of Westminster!
fraternally
william
The idea of a citizens’ panel is a good one and should be developed further. I don’t think that the use of referenda is appropriate as it allows the media too much opportunity to influence the outcome.
More action, however is needed, to deter any future careerists and carpetbaggers. Since the 1980s there has been a clause in the Labour Party constitution allowing for disciplinary action against those members deemed to have “brought the party into disrepute”. I see no reason whatsoever why the likes of Hazel Blears, Elliott Morley and Shahid Malik should not be subject to the same procedure as Terry Fields and Dave Nellist were, and. if found guilty, the same punishment.
But given that some Labour Party NEC members (Patricia will know who I mean) are (allegedly) among the biggest culprits of all, I’m not going to hold my breath.
To Patricia Hewitt
You are spot on, the public will decide. I think the public will decide who belongs to the history books.
When, when, when will all the halfwits in Westminster wake up. By saying; “oh sorry” or it was a slip up just does not wash with anyone of any political bent.
For instance how can lispy Julie Kirkbride or her pocket lined husband ever put their heads above the parapit of political debate again. Snouts in two troughs in that household and our lot are no better. Sorry to say it but in my humble view MP’s (of all parties) must go.
Roger Edwards
Wolverhmpton South West
My worry is that like all past requests for public involvement; such participation has proved to be toothless. Labour does not like to be challenged; listen to Margaret Beckett on Question Time; “The Public does not understand” How patronising!
Moreover, how will members of such panels be selected; is it about who you know; or is it really going to be about setting what is really fair and necessary.
When we have shown evidence to be flawed, the Labour government has disregarded open and honest debate because they do not like their policies to be subjected to challenge; it just gets swept away.
The ordinary person goes for a job; you might be lucky to get a contract for 5 years; you don’t usually get second homes or enhanced pensions, yet alone such high expense accounts. As like all volunteers; I see public service as just that, public service without pay; stop moaning and get on with it as you all keep telling us to do and be luckily that you are in work.
I submitted to the power inquiry and said at that time there should be far fewer MPs; let us start now, the country cannot afford you all; start with one MP per family and they must be chosen from the area and have lived there for some time!
Finally, one MP was moaning that they had to be very close to parliament, well there is a nice Travelodge near Tower Bridge; try that per night and no more fancy hotels and restaurant; enough is enough.
Yes and like MP’s which should be picked by local members it was then abused by Blair brown by hand picking people and dropping them into safe seats.
Panels would not take long to become part of the party in power.
Rules should be set and if broken your gone, like the Tories are doing now all expenses should be placed in the public domain and a a right to question this should be placed with the speaker having to look into it.
How can Jaquie Smith, Home Secretary, look her constituents in the face.
Who are the mugs whom she expects to canvas for her in the next general election?
She should resign and pay back her ill gotton gains,
public servant, bah humbug
I agree Robert; unless the majority of people from the area choose them, then they should not be allowed to stand, after all, are they not supposed to represent everyone regardless of party?: oh silly me maybe not!
We have got to change this stranglehold of people like Blair (and those still in the Labour government) and how they undermined and continue to undermine democracy and the reputation of our country
The excuse MPs are giving for the abuse of their privileges is: “I was following rules, it is the system”.
Echoes of the past and present excuses in other spheres of life: “I was only following orders”
If they are that easy a push over then our Country’s security is at risk and something must be done now!
Patricia’s idea of holding a wide public consultation event to decide on MPs expenses seems to be an example of passing the buck. We live in a representative democracy where our parliamentarians are supposed to have the confidence and wisdom to get on with the job of making decisions on our behalf without expensive consultation exercises led by privately hired consultants who themselves take public money for telling us the bleedin’ obvious. If we the voters don’t like the decisions MPs make, we can throw them out at the next election.
A consultation process on expenses would just undermine our democracy still further with its emphasis on the internal machinations of our parliament. Parliament should be looking outward and dealing with matters that affect us all, that’s why we elect them.
What’s the problem here? There are numerous organisations out there who have ready made robust systems for monitoring and managing its members or staff expenses accounts. What is there to consult about? I’m sure Virgin doesn’t provide main or second homes for its directors or management. And if the BBC (a publicly funded body) has more generous arrangements than a large private organiation then this itself requires investigation.
What is wrong with an MP staying in a hotel or even a purpose built comfortably appointed hostel for parliamentarians when they require overnight accommodation when attending Westminster? Why should an MP acquire a second home when their term of office may only last one or perhaps two terms? Surely the only expense a parliamentarian should be permitted to claim is for travel expenses associated with ones duties and any overnight stay or meal allowance for being away from home (where one is say 30 miles away from home on parliamentary business). Most employees and even the expenses system operated by the Ministry of Justice for its staff and publicly appointed lay members can only claim a meal allowance (with a receipt) when on business for in excess of four hours and away from home (and if food is provided whilst undertaking that duty – one can’t claim this allowance). That’s really the sum of it.
The other expenes concerned with managing a constituency office and staff is a totally different matter and itself should be (if it isn’t at present) subject to proper accounting procedures and recording of receipts for any expenditure claimed. Furthermore, why do we have to wait until the mid summer for this wretched standards committee headed by Christopher Kelly, appointed at public expense, to deliberate and report back on this subject with recommendations. Surely this task could be completed in a week at most (and I’m being generous here). It appears we the taxpayers are being fleeced by the very body designed to uphold probity on our behalf.
I worked away from home for many many years, if the job was over ten years like the building of a large Nuclear Power station we were expected to either move home or live in temporary accommodation. If the job was shorter say five years we had to live in digs, or we rented. But on the whole if you bought a house then you were expected to live in it you moved home.
This idea’s MP’s need a second home is stupid live in a hotel or live in digs like the rest of the world.
I’m delighted to see so many responses to my piece last week. William Cobbett said that citizens’ juries should be a prelude to a referendum. I don’t think we need a referendum on citizens’ juries – but we certainly do on the much bigger issues of constitutional reform, such as an elected second chamber, electoral reform or even a written constitution. I now think that we should move forward to a Constitutional Convention to deal first with the role of an MP, and how they should be paid and resourced, but then move on to the wider issues.
Although some of the attacks on Michael Martin were pure class snobbery, it was clearly right that he should step down. A new Speaker has a great opportunity to help restore some trust in Parliament – and indeed, a Speaker’s Conference could take forward this whole constitutional debate. Although all previous Speaker’s Conferences have been restricted to Members of Parliament, there are no actual rules governing them, so a modernising Speaker could surely involve citizens directly, in the way I suggested before. (In case I didn’t make it clear, citizens’ juries and citizens’ summits are selected from the electoral register – they are not drawn from pressure groups or other organisations.)
Both William Cobbett and Colin talk about the need for disciplinary action. I’m not going to judge any of my colleagues on the basis of what I’ve read in the press. But of course these allegations need to be properly investigated, in a way that is fair to colleaguges, and appropriate disciplinary action taken if an MP is found to have broken the rules or behaved in a way that disgraces the Labour Party. So it’s good that Gordon Brown and the NEC have now started exactly that process.
I was interested to see comments from Robert, Jeremy, George and others about second homes – and given all the really shameful revelations there have been, I’m not surprised people would lock MPs up in barracks in future! But I don’t think I saw any comments from women. I remember how difficult it was before 1997 to persuade good Labour women to put themselves forward as Parliamentary candidates, simply because it seemed impossible to combine family with the life of an MP. It still isn’t easy – although changing the hours has helped (and we still need to do more.) I know when my children were younger, that it was vital for us to be able to spend weekends in the constituency as a family – and you can’t do that if you’re staying in a hotel (as MPs used to when there were no second home allowances.) As I said in my first piece, there’s no need to pay MPs to buy a house, never mind a stately home! There’s no need for plasma TVs or home cinema sets. But let’s remember all the work we have put in to making MPs more representative of the public we want to serve – and not throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Parliament must provide/furnish all ‘second’ homes for elected MPs, whether they be in a Constituency or in London. When such MPs cease to be in office the replacement MP should occupy that ‘provided home’ instead(and if they choose not to occupy such ‘home’ they would not be entitled to make any claim against Parliament in respect of property they choose to occupy in lieu). It is grossly offensive to ordinary taxpayers that MPs exploit a Capital Gains Tax-loophole and enjoy a windfall tax-free gain when such property is sold. To end that, Parliamentary authorities must become the landlord for such official properties. Food costs at such second homes must be borne by the MP from salary, but as serviced properties owned by Parliament maintenance/repairs/ furnishings must be borne by Parliament. The Taxpayer should also be entitled to scrutinise ALL other allowances made to MPs, such as Office Costs, Communications etc, from the public purse. Finally the salary of an MP should be firmly tied to NOT MORE THAN THAT of Deputy Secretary in the Home Civil Service, although Ministers could be paid up to 40% extra to reflect the additional hours/effort expected of Govt members.
It is now time to change the terms of this debate. There seems little coincidence that in one month the righter wings of our press have so successfully diverted public and political attentions away from the bonuses, pay offs and pensions being doled out to those in control of the private sector where salaries are already in the hundreds and thousands and above and are now met from, or subsidised by, the public purse. The legacy of privatisation had come home to roost but we made little of that?
Instead we are now focussed on the claims for hundreds and at worst thousands of quid by people who run our country for, in the main, well under £100k plus allowances. Both the media attack, and the political response, runs the risk of destablisising not just a labour government, but the governmental process. Similar actions have, at other times and in other countries, resulted in the rise of extremism. I recognise the Labour politicians feel bad and there may be some appologising and resigning required, but for the most part I would suggest we now get a media strategy that points out where this attack has come from and how convenient it is for those who are now out of the spotlight and continue to benefit from the increasing gulf between rich and poor at public expense. Maybe a comparator between the income and expenses claims of Sir Fred and any one of the MP’s in the spotlight would make an interesting read. Will the private sector now be asked to pay back their pay offs in a similar way, I think not. Yes the system of allowances needs changing, but it was not on expenses system and the over defensiveness and political fight for the moral highground within such a limited debate will not be of benefit to any party in the long run and adds to the diversion. The real debate, about what is fair and to what degree incomes for those who run global companies should be publicly regulated or limited, is an opportunity being missed, or if you ar one of the beneficiearies, skillfully sidestepped.