Peter Kenyon

Labour Party: lowering MPs expenses - lodgings

Divining how the constitutional crisis now engulfing the Mother of Parliaments is going to come to an end, Pat (my wife) and I were pondering earlier today how to move forward. We are both passionate believers in the role of political parties in our parliamentary democracy. Having heard Clare Short's lamentable excuses on the Today Programme this morning, I suggested a lodging, rather than a second home, allowance.

Why should an MP have an expectation of a second home funded by the taxpayer? Pat instantly expanded on how that might help keep MPs focussed on their constituencies, as well as lower the costs of Parliamentary Allowances. With the reforms to Parliamentary hours brought in by Labour, most days that Parliament sits are within commuting distance for lots of MPs not just those representing Greater London constituencies. A lodging allowance might also reduce the risk of extra-marital affairs, encouraging those MPs with families to get home as quickly and often as possible. And so on.

We then drifted on to how MPs might clock in and out to be eligible for such an allowance. I recalled a presentation at the last Labour Party NEC meeting from the chief whip, Nick Brown, about which my lips were sealed. At least that was until the telephone rang a moment ago. It was the political editor of a daily newspaper. Apparently, No 10 is doing some briefing which has a strong link to a very interesting idea about MPs actually doing the job we elected them to do - namely, vote. One of the problems facing the Labour Whips' Office is (I'm led to understand)  'unauthorised absence', that is Labour MPs, who are meant to be in the House of Commons to vote, just not turning up. Here we are not talking about the rebels. Apparently these MPs don't even bother to tell the Whips' Office that they are not going to be in the House at the appointed hour for a division.

So instead of a daily allowance for signing in (widely condemned by the media and opposition MPs as bringing the Brussels gravy train to Westminster), maybe there is a case for a lodging allowance linked to Hansard's record of voting in divisions - 100% allowance for 100% voting record, tapered for unauthorised absence to zero, depending on the number of divisions on the sitting day in question. Or maybe deductions for unauthorised absences?

Just another thought for Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life to ponder.

Time to rally round Brown, and reconnect with voters - update

Speculation about a stalking-horse to run against Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown makes me think it is time to rally round our Leader. I was asked on Sky TV the day Mr Brown announced on You Tube his commitment to reform of MPs expenses what I thought. Without any briefing to shape my reply, I said repeatedly I thought it was the right thing for a Prime Minister to do, when it was so obvious that public hostility to MPs' extravagent and inappropriate expense claims had to be addressed.

There may be disagreements about defining out of town MPs legitimate expenses and how they should be reimbursed. But there shouldn't be any doubt that MPs living in easy commuting distance should not be entitled to a second homes allowance, or that incomes from other employment should be declared in full or that MPs office staff should be direct employees of the House. Indeed, the Conservative front bench is reported here as supporting all those parts of the Prime Minister's proposal.

And for the avoidance of doubt was the interim per diem allowance such a bad idea pending the outcome of the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Given that the House will be in recess most of the time before that Committee reports, MPs would not be eligible for the allowance as soon as the long, oh, so long summer recess starts, anyway. Though I am assuming Sir Christopher Kelly is going to get on with taking evidence and making recommendations sooner rather than later.

Mr Brown should be given full credit for having forced a vote on those issues now. We in the Labour Party, especially on its National Executive Committee, should be mapping out how we can use this initiative, the introduction of the 50p tax rate, imminent withdrawal from Iraq, and the forthcoming Euro-elections (amongst other things) to reconnect with Labour voters. How else are we going to reverse an 11-year trend in declining membership and win back millions of voters?

Personally, I hope that the Chief Whip's office is lining up Labour ministers and any Labour MPs seeking re-election, to repay taxpayers' money that the court of public opinion regards as 'larding it'. Voluntary repayments by any other member of the PLP (not covered above) would be widely welcomed as a means of restoring our elected representatives' sullied reputations.

Update 1236 - apparently David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party has bottled out of supporting the PM over second incomes. Hat-tip Labourboy

Standards in Public Life confused with party funding

Sir Christopher Kelly, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life risks torching his own reputation by opining about a recent inquiry into the funding of political parties.

According to the BBC report of his press conference earlier today about a survey into public trust in our politicians:

Sir Christopher told a press conference in Westminster this morning that he was concerned by the lack of resolution within Parliament over party funding.

He called for political parties "to have the courage to work together to reach a consensus" and said it was "a matter of great dismay that this has not happened and may not happen until after the next election".

Interviewed later on the BBC TV One o'clock news he explicitly refered to the doomed Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I shall be sending him copies of my main pieces on party funding published in Chartist, here , here and, if you have access to a proper library, Chartist #212 when I reviewed the Electoral Commission report on party political funding (2004). I warned prior to publication of Hayden Phillips updated report in 2007:

The unsuspecting public should beware. This is no innocent inquiry.

I look forward to your graceful retraction, Sir Christopher, pending proper consideration as would become someone in your position with a reputation to consider as much as any politician.