MPs' expenses reforms – live
Minute-by-minute coverage as Commons watchdog publishes plans for overhaul of allowances system and Gordon Brown faces prime minister's question time
Gordon Brown during PMQs today. Photograph: BBC Parliament
8.40am: It's the day of reckoning. The committee on standards in public life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, is publishing its plans for an overhaul of the MPs' expenses system. The key proposals – a ban on MPs claiming mortgage interest, a ban on MPs claiming for a second home if they live less than about an hour's commuting distance from Westminster, and some form of ban on MPs employing relatives – have already been leaked. But there's plenty that we don't know, and plenty of reasons why this should an important day for the House of Commons.
First, we don't know the details, and in particular when Kelly wants the new rules to come into force. The report is more than 100 pages long and MPs, and the public, won't be able to decide how draconian the proposals are until they have read the small print.
Second, we don't know how MPs are going to react. We know that they're not happy. But we don't know whether the grumbling will turn into an open revolt and, if it does, how extensive that will be.
Third, we don't know much about how the new system will be implemented. The new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be in charge of bringing in the new regime. But it seems to have some discretion to tinker with the Kelly proposals. Exactly how much discretion isn't clear. By this afternoon we might have a better idea.
I'll be live blogging throughout the day. Kelly is publishing his report at 10am when he'll be holding a press conference (I'll be there). We'll probably hear a bit more about this at PMQs (which I'll be covering as usual, on a separate blog). And after PMQs Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, will make a statement about Kelly in the chamber, which I'll be covering too. That's when we will start to find out what MPs really think.
8.51am: The report has not even been published, but Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has already urged MPs to accept it in full. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he says:
We needed all politicians of all parties to come together and say that we were going to adopt the Kelly proposals lock, stock and barrel. To suggest now that it could be left up to this arm's length agency – Ipsa – to reinvent the rules is ludicrous. Ipsa should make it clear right from the start that it sees its role as implementing the Kelly proposals in their entirety ... We would be committing a spectacular own goal if we were seen as getting involved in monkey business by trying to wriggle out of the straitjacket that Kelly seeks to impose. It beggars belief – and could happen only in this Alice in Wonderland parliament – and to me the whole thing is starting to stink.
Clegg, of course, knows more than we do. Kelly briefed the opposition parties on the conclusions in his report last week.
8.56am: Bizarre intro of the day. Andy McSmith has a story in the Independent that starts with the suggestion that "bedroom police will be needed to check up on MPs who might be having illicit affairs with their staff if the ban on employing close relatives is to be enforced fairly".
McSmith attributes this idea to Phil Cole - Mr Caroline Flint - who thinks that a ban on MPs employing their spouses would be unfair and impractical. Cole says:
What if an MP begins a sexual relationship with a [member of] staff? At what point does it become a formal relationship under the Kelly rules? Are we going to have bedroom policing? We are going to have a dual set of rules, one for single MPs, or gay MPs who have not been through a civil ceremony, and one for those who are married or have been through a civil ceremony. Would my position be different if Caroline and I were still living together but were not married?
Cole has worked for Flint since she was elected in 1997. They lived together for 10 years before getting married in 2001. As McSmith says: "That belated decision to marry is now likely to cost Mr Cole his job."
9.13am: John Redwood seems to agree with Mr Caroline Flint. On his blog he says:
Time will also tell whether the officials when recruited at Ipsa share Kelly's certainties about allowable expenses, and his wish to sack all relatives currently employed in parliament. As someone who does not employ a relative, I think a blanket rule against all such existing contracts may be unenforceable given current employment law.
9.16am: According to the BBC, John Bercow will say that MPs have to accept Kelly's recommendations in full. That will doubtless do a lot for his popularity on the Tory benches. You would expect Bercow to say this, but it may have some practical consequences. Bercow chairs the committee that will appoint the people who will run Ipsa. The chairman has already been appointed, but Bercow's committee needs to appoint four board members too.
9.22am: I'm always happy to face a bit of competition, so here's a link to Tory Bear, who will also be live blogging the Kelly press conference.
9.27am: The press conference is at One Whitehall Place. I'm just heading off there now. I'll pick the blog up again just before 10.
9.50am: One Whitehall Place is the home of the National Liberal Club (Clegg would approve) and it's very plush. A sweeping marble staircase, tree-high ceilings and lots of wooden panels all over the place. It's the kind of club where they burn a log fire in the middle of summer. (I know, because I saw that happening here once.) We're in the River Room, which is exquisite. There won't be many MPs living like this after today.
9.55am: They've just handed the report out. Burgundy cover, 140 pages. Let's take a look ...
9.58am: No great surprises. The key reforms are to be phased in over five years, or over the course of the next parliament. And MPs will be banned from 'double jobbing' – sitting in other parliaments. This would affect Northern Irish MPs who sit in the Stormont assembly and any MSPs sitting at Westminster. Kelly wants this rule enforced by 2011.
I'll post a summary of the main points now.
10.01am: Here are the key recommendations:
• Payment of morgage interest to end after five years, or one parliament, with "appropriate transitional arrangements" in place in the meantime. Any capital gains made during the transitional period to be surrendered to the taxpayer.
• In future (ie after the five-year transitional period) MPs would only be allowed to claim for rent or hotel bills. A "central agency" would handle the arrangements. This would ensure that MPs with families were able to claim for bigger properties. Any MPs elected for the first time at the next election should only be able to rent or claim for a hotel.
• MPs should only be able to claim for basic items in connection with accommodation. They would not be able to claim for cleaning, gardening or furnishings.
• MPs with constituencies "within reasonable commuting distance of parliament" should not be able to claim for accommodation. The London allowance should be cut, but there should be a higher rate for those MPs outside Greater London to reflect commuting costs.
• MPs should be banned from employing family members after five years. The committee says this practice is "not in accord with modern employment practice".
• The communication allowance should be abolished.
• The £25 overnight allowance should only be available to MPs staying in hotels who provide receipts.
• Only MPs who are defeated at an election should be able to claim the resettlement allowance. MPs who stand down voluntarily should get eight weeks' pay. This should come into force at the election after next.
• All receipts should be published.
• MPs should be alllowed to carry on doing outside jobs, such as journalism, provided this remains within "reasonable limits". Information about this should be provided at election time.
• Double-jobbing (see my earlier post) should end by 2011.
• Ipsa should have the same powers as HM Revenue and Customs to investigate expenses abuse and to impose sanctions (which is a reference to clawing back money, I presume).
10.13am: Kelly is making his opening statement now. He starts with a complaint about the way recommendations were leaked after he briefed the opposition parties last week. This was not helpful, he says, because it meant that MPs received a partial account of what was being proposed. He does not say who he thinks was responsible, but he says the leaks did not come from his committee.
10.15am: Kelly says that only 12 MPs will be affected by the rule he is proposing about MPs not being allowed to claim for a second home if they live within commuting distance of the Commons. He says, under current rules, 25 inner London MPs cannot claim for a second home. From next year, under rules already agreed, another 54 outer London MPs will not be able to claim. Around half of those 54 MPs do not claim anyway. The Kelly proposal would extend this a bit further. He thinks an extra 12 MPs would be affected. But it will be up to Ipsa to sort out the details. At least one of these 12 already does not claim for a second home, he says.
10.18am: On MPs employing their spouses, Kelly takes a pop at Harriet Harman. At the weekend Harman suggested that banning this practice would be a bad idea. But Kelly says that this would be unacceptable in other organisations. And he points out that Harman herself made the same point when she gave evidence to his committee.
10.20am: Kelly says the powers of the standards and privileges committee ought to be strengthened. And he says the communication allowance ought to be abolished. Some MPs only used it for "self-publicity".
10.22am: Kelly is winding up now. He says Ipsa should implement the report "in full". He accepts that bringing the new rules in within five years is a tight timetable, but he says it can be achieved.
Finally, he apologises for his heavy cold.
10.23am: We're on to questions. Does Kelly think MPs' pay was kept artificially low? And what will happen if MPs water down the recommendations?
Kelly says his committee did not consider pay. But he thinks determination of pay should be protected by regulation, so that MPs can be protected from prime ministers who ignore the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. (For years, governments have refused to implement SSRB recommendations on parliamentary pay because giving pay rises to MPs is unpopular.)
And he says the political leaders have told him they accept the need for the committee's proposals to be implemented.
10.28am: In response to a question about late nights, Kelly says MPs ought to qualify for the same payments that Commons staff receive if they have to stay late for a vote. He says that they should be able to get £120 to cover the cost of a night in a hotel. It would be up to Ipsa to work out the details.
Asked if paying rent would be more expensive than paying mortgage costs, Kelly concedes that "at the margin" rent could be more expensive. But he says MPs don't have to rent expensive properties.
10.32am: Asked if MPs will have a "perverse incentive" to stay on because the resettlement grant is being abolished, Kelly says this is a relatively small point when MPs weigh up whether or not to stay on for another five years.
On double-jobbing, Kelly says all the Northern Ireland parties want to see an end to this practice. But they cannot agree on when. He thought it would be helpful to put a date on this (2011). (There are no Welsh MPs sitting in the Welsh assembly and the only MP in the Scottish parliament, Alex Salmond, has said he will leave Westminster at the election.)
10.38am: Kelly says that MPs ought to pay back any capital gain earned from now. Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asks if he will carry out an independent valuation of all MPs' properties to find out how much they are worth now (because otherwise it will be impossible to find out how much extra capital is being earned from today). Kelly says it will be up to Ipsa to enforce this. But he says it is routine for HM Revenue and Customs to have to make calculations of this kind, so he does not anticipate any problem.
10.48am: My connection went down for a moment, but you haven't missed much.
On spouses, Kelly said MPs did not realise how unusual it was for people to employ their spouses. GPs are the only other people to do it, he suggests. He says that "even the European parliament" (and then he apologises for that "even") has decided its members should not employ spouses. They are phasing this practice out.
In response to another question, Kelly says that he wants to beef up the powers of Ipsa because, under the current law, if it wants to reclaim money that has been overpaid it has to go through the standards and privileges committee. This would be cumbersome, he says. It should have the same powers as Revenue & Customs. But the government would need to legislate to allow this to happen.
10.52am: Should wealthy MPs forgo the resettlement grant after this election, even though they don't have to? Kelly says it's up to MPs to decide whether or not to claim the grant.
10.54am: Main homes would not have to be in the MP's constituency, Kelly says.
10.55am: Kelly says he's not worried about MPs leaving parliament because they cannot make a profit from their expenses.
10.56am: Asked about the legality of banning MPs from employing spouses, Kelly says he cannot be "100% sure" that this would survive a legal challenge. He has taken legal advice on this, but it was not absolutely clear, because legal advice never is. But he says that he thinks the ban could be justified in court as a "proportionate response" to the problem. He also says it is not clear whom a spouse would sue. Employees normally have to take action against the employer. In this case, that could lead to a wife taking action against her husband.
11.00am: Nick Robinson is pressing Kelly to describe the standards that operated. He says the way the system was abused was "deplorable" and the damage done has been "considerable".
Brian Woods-Scawen, a member of the committee, says that it is in MPs' interests to accept these new arrangements.
Robinson asks if he thinks MPs' pay should go up.
Woods-Scawen says the SSRB conducts a review of pay every five years. It should think "very deeply" about what the role of MPs is and what their reward should be.
Lloyd Clarke, another committee member, says he does not think MPs are being "clobbered".
Elizabeth Vallance says the committee has been keen to look forward, not back.
(Robinson, like other journalists, has been trying to get Kelly and his colleagues to express their horror at what was going on. Kelly did use the word "deplorable" just now, but generally he has been anxious to avoid attributing blame. The committee is leaving it up to the media to write the "snouts in the trough" headlines.)
11.07am: Nick Robinson asks if anyone on the committee thinks MPs should be paid more. Sir Derek Morris, another member of the committee, says that's a matter for the SSRB.
11.08am: Would Kelly stand down if parliament waters down the committee's recommendatons? No, says Kelly. But he does not expect that to happen anyway.
11.09am: James Lyon from the Daily Mirror asks what happens if an MP develops a relationship with an employee.
Kelly says this is an issue faced in workplaces all over the country. He refers to Mr Caroline Flint's complaint about "bedroom police". (See my earlier post.) In normal working environments, people find a way of dealing with this, he says.
That's the end of the press conference.
11.13am: The report is available on the committee's website.
11.14am: There are 60 recommendations in the report. I'll quickly read them now and put up anything important that we've missed.
11.25am: There are some other choice nuggets in the full list of recommendations.
• The agency in charge of renting accommodation for MPs should be run along the lines of "the MoD scheme for service personnel". (So the committee agreed with those who said MPs should be treated like squaddies ... )
• MPs should not be allowed to increase the amount they claim in mortgage interest before those claims are phased out in five years' time.
• MPs who share a second home should be able to claim the maximum paid to a single MP, plus a third.
• MPs should no longer be allowed to claim for accountancy costs when filling in their tax returns.
• MPs should not be allowed to claim for travel to a home that is not in or close to their constituency.
• The standards and privileges committee should have the power to stop MPs found guilty of serious misconduct from claiming the resettlement grant.
• There should be at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians on the standards and privileges committee. And they should have full voting rights. (I think this is unprecedented, and it's unlikely to go down well - ordinary members of the public sitting on a Commons committee ... )
• There should also be at least three lay members who have never been parliamentarians sitting on the Speaker's committee that appoints members of Ipsa.
I'm heading back to the Commons now, where I'll be blogging PMQs in half an hour.
Deborah Summers's MPs' expenses news story is up here.
12.01pm: PMQs is about to start. I'll be blogging it here. Gordon Brown has already issued a statement saying he accepts the Kelly proposals "in full". He said so in a letter to Kelly.
I accept your report. We need to establish a new system to re-establish trust. It is right that this new system is not determined, administered or amended by MPs. I therefore agree with your recommendation that it will be for the new IPSA to implement this new system.
12.02pm: Brown is up now. He starts with condolences to the families of the five soldiers killed in Afghanistan yesterday. It's a "terrible loss".
12.03pm: Jamie Reed, Labour, asks what the government will do to end the "postcode lottery" in health.
12.05pm: Brown says the government will move to a one-week maximum wait before getting cancer treatment. He says that people are right to be worried about health and then he starts to quote from something the shadow health secretary said yesterday. At that point John Bercow interrupts. "I don't think we need to go into that today." It's the first time he's stopped Brown making a political point in PMQs, I think. Brown doesn't look happy.
12.06pm: Cameron asks about Afghanistan. Brown says he is stepping up security in Afghanistan. But he will not give up efforts to train the Afghan security forces.
12.07pm: Cameron says the training that British soldiers are doing with Afghan troops is "incredibly impressive". But he wants to know what is being done to safeguard British soldiers who are living and working alongside Afghans. Brown says security is a concern.
12.09pm: Cameron says yesterday's attack raises concerns about the infiltration of the Afghan police. What is being done to "clean up" the Afghan police?
12.10pm: Brown says the Taliban have claimed responsibility for yesterday's attack. The numbers and quality of Afghan police will have to be increased.
Cameron asks if it is time to return to the idea of having a single figure in charge of delivering political progress in Afghanistan.
12.11pm: Brown says he has been discussing the possibility of having a "coordinator" of this kind working alongside Hamid Karzai, the president.
12.13pm: Cameron says that, given the casualties, today is not a day for "obsessing about the internal workings of parliament and the Commons". But does Brown agree that the Kelly report should be accepted in full?
Brown says "people want to know that the system in future will be different". That's why the Kelly report will be referred to Ipsa for implementation. The "vast majority" of MPs are trying to do a decent job. "That is why we should accept the Kelly recommendations."
David Blunkett asks Brown what he thinks about about an oppostion leader whose "cast-iron guarantee" on a Lisbon treaty referendum has turned out to be "made of plywood".
12.14pm: Bercow asks Brown to focus his reply on the government.
12.15pm: Brown says the government will work with its partners in Europe. It will not make "iron-cast" guarantees that it cannot keep.
Nick Clegg starts with tributes to the dead servicemen and says people will be "shocked" that they were killed by someone they thought they could trust. How much time will Brown give Karzai to clean up his government?
12.15pm: Brown says Karzai said he would clean up his government at a press conference yesterday. The international community will need to see whether he lives up to this.
12.16pm: Clegg says Brown needs to be more precise. What will Brown do if the "legitimate and inclusive government we so desperately need in Kabul does not emerge"?
12.17pm: Brown says the government has already imposed conditions for the deployment of extra soldiers.
12.21pm: David Winnick (Lab) asks how long British servicemen will stay in Afghanistan. Brown says he wants to build up Afghan security forces so that British soldiers can come home.
12.21pm: Another attempt to get Brown to have a go at the Tories. Ronnie Campbell (Lab) asks about tax credits. Brown says that, where the government has made promises, it will continue to deliver on them "unlike some other people".
12.22pm: Phyllis Starkey (Lab) asks if Brown will back the Youth Parliament's call for the voting age to be reduced to 16.
12.24pm: Brown says he is personally in favour of this. But it's a matter for consultation.
12.27pm: David Davies (Con, Monmouth) asks Brown if he will publish figures about how many servicemen lose limbs in Afghanistan. Brown says he will give as much information as possible, subject to the approval of the chief of the defence staff.
Stephen Pound (Lab) asks if there should be reserved seats at PMQs for members of the armed forces.
12.29pm: Brown says that's an "interesting proposal" which he can support. But he says it would need the approval of the Speaker and other parties.
12.31pm: In response to another question about guarantees, Brown says the phrase "iron-cast" has become "so devalued in recent days". ("Cast-iron" was the adjective Cameron used to describe his pledge to hold a referendum on the Libson treaty.) Brown says Cameron made an "iron-cast" guarantee on health on Monday. So he finally got the chance to make his point about Cameron's health plans.
12.35pm: Harriet Harman is making her statement now. But before she did, John Bercow announced the appointment of Sir Ian Kennedy as head of Ipsa. Bercow said he would be paid a maximum of £100,000. This caused a bit of an uproar. I think that's the appropriate word. It was certainly very noisy, and Bercow struggled to be heard as he finished his statement with some stuff about how good a candidate he was.
12.38pm: Harman is summarising some of the Kelly recommendations. She mentions two in particular: the ban on MPs claiming for mortgage interest; and the ban on MPs employing family members.
Harman says the motion to confirm Sir Ian Kennedy's appointment will be put to a vote within the next few days. Other members of the Ipsa board will be appointed shortly.
The government accepts the Kelly report in full. But it will be up to Ipsa to take it forward.
In the meantime, the current expenses regime will remain in place.
Harman says it does not make sense for MPs to vote on the new expenses regime. The government expects Ipsa to put the new measures in place as soon as possible.
With all the measures taking place, the expenses controversy "can be resolved".
12.42pm: Sir George Young replies for the Tories. He starts by saying he deplores the way Kelly's recommendations were leaked last week.
Does Harman agree the reforms need to be implemented as quickly as possible? Could Ipsa come to its conclusion on the Kelly report by February?
Will the interim arrangements carry on until the new parliament?
Does Harman accept that some of the Kelly recommendations will require legislation? When will that happen?
On the recommendations, Young declares an interest as an MP who employs a relative.
Young says there are "legitimate concerns" with aspects of the report, particularly those relating to MPs who have to commute.
He also asks for an assurance that costs will be monitored, so that the recommendations do not result in the taxpayer paying more.
12.47pm: Harman replies to Young. She says she also deplores the leak.
On timing, she says Ipsa "is already up and running". It will take Kelly "as its text". The interim regime will continue until the new one is in place.
On legislation, Harman says she does not think the government should be legislating to change the Ipsa structure. (But the Kelly report does call for legislation, because Kelly wants Ipsa to have new powers.)
Harman says the proposal for a ban on the employment of relatives should not "cause a cloud" to hang over relatives who work in parliament. Ipsa "will not want to fall foul of employment law". (Is that a hint that she thinks the ban would not survive a court challenge? I can't tell at this stage.)
12.51pm: David Heath responds now for the Lib Dems. He says that MPs have a choice about standing for parliament.
"Piecemeal attempts at reform" have lacked coherence, Heath says. He urges Harman to accept this.
And he tells her that accepting the report will require legislation. (My point, from 12.47pm)
12.53pm: Harman replies. She acknowledges the point about "piecemeal" reforms (which is a quote from the report).
On the issues requiring legisation, those are matters the government will have to consider, she says. She points out that the new expense system can be introduced without legislation because the statutory changes proposed by Kelly relate to the functions of Ipsa.
12.56pm: In response to a rather rambling question from Sir Stuart Bell, Harman agrees that it would be nice to get to a stage where MPs do not have to worry about their pay and allowances.
She says MPs no longer vote on their pay. She does not want them to have to vote on their allowances either.
12.57pm: Peter Robinson, the DUP MP and Northern Ireland first minister, asks if MPs will have the chance to vote on allowances paid to MPs who do not take their seats (ie, Sinn Fein).
I've just checked the Kelly report. It says that the decision to allow MPs to claim allowances for accommodation in London even though they do not take their seats was a "political" one and the report does not express an opinion as to whether it was right or wrong.
1.00pm: Sir Patrick Cormack asks if MPs should have a "take note" debate on the Kelly report. No, says Harman. She wants "to move away from the preoccuption in this House with our allowances".
Harman says she does not rule out the possibility of a debate in the future. But she implies that it's not going to happen any time soon. And she says she certainly does not want MPs voting on the Kelly recommendations.
1.03pm: Angus Robertson, SNP, says he welcomes the Kelly report, which will move Westminster towards the "higher standard" that applies in the Scottish parliament.
1.04pm: Gordon Prentice, Labour, asks about the "generous pay-offs to MPs who leave the government and subsequently rejoin it".
Ministers get about three months' salary when they leave government as a redundancy payment, I think.
Harman says the government has already addressed this. If ex-ministers subsequently rejoin the government, those payments are clawed back. That's the first time I've heard that.
1.06pm: Peter Bone, Conservative, asks if Harman is surprised that Kelly is encouraging "wife-swapping". (There's a suggestion that spouses working for MPs will just find another MP to work for.) Harman refers him to what Kelly says in his report.
1.07pm: Mark Durkan, SDLP, says a five-year transition period is too long.
1.08pm: Peter Bottomley, Conservative, asks Harman to reconsider what she said about a "take note" debate. He says the Kelly report would make it difficult for MPs with young children.
Harman says she will think about this. But she wants to know what the purpose of such a debate would be. If MPs want to use to make a point to Ipsa, they can do that by just writing to Ipsa. MPs have got to have "a bit of a self-denying ordinance" so that, having legislated for an independent authority, they allow it to get on with its work.
1.14pm: That's it. The statement is over. On the basis of what we heard, there doesn't seem to any public backlash against Kelly. It was all rather mooted. The only thing that appeared to wind anyone up was the £100,00-a-year salary for Sir Ian Kennedy. (See my post at 12.35pm.)
I've just had some clarification from a parliamentary official about the salary. Kennedy will get paid £700 a day. He expects to work two or three days a week to begin with, going down to one day a week later. But there's a cap on how much he can receive, so that he cannot get more than £100,000 a year.
We still have not heard all the reaction and most MPs - like me - have not had a chance to consider the report in full. I'll keep blogging through the afternoon as we learn more.
1.40pm: In the comments section Lushattic has written this:
Speaker calling a lot of Lib Dems today, probably meaningless but worthy of note I think.
S/he should read this, a blog post by the government whip Kerry McCarthy that explains exactly who gets called at PMQs and why.
Back to expenses in a mo ...
1.47pm: Sir Ian Kennedy, the new chairman of Ipsa, has put out a statement. Ipsa has to consult before implementing the Kelly proposals, but Kennedy says this won't take long. And he insists that he will be thoroughly independent.
I am starting work immediately. I met the officials supporting me this morning and have given them clear instructions on the way forward ...
I have asked the interim chief executive and his team to set out how we will take this work forward as soon as possible - by preparing a consultation paper for approval by the Ipsa's Board in early December. This will set out our proposed allowances scheme and how it will be administered. We will then consult as widely as possible.
The consultation will be wide but not time consuming. It will be free for anyone to comment, including MPs themselves. But let me be clear, this Authority is independent - of parliament, government and of any other particular interest - and we will be independent in drawing up the proposals and in implementing them.
The final scheme will be ready to put into effect early next spring, so we have a new scheme, with no association with the system that has been so discredited.
I've just had a look at the Ipsa website to find out more, but, as you can see, there's not much there at the moment. But we've got the full text of the Kennedy statement on our site.
1.59pm: The Guardian's story on Sir Ian Kennedy's appointment describes him in the intro as "an expert on medical ethics and law". I've just read the Press Association version, which is rather different. It's headlined "Former TV host nominated as Ipsa chairman". That's because Kennedy hosted a few editions of the Channel 4 programme After Dark in the 1980s.
2.06pm: At last! I've found an MP who's willing to take a pop at Kelly. This is what Roger Gale has told the Press Association.
It is the devil in the detail which does actually need to be examined. It looks fine on the surface - and most of it is, there is a huge amount that is very good and very welcome in the work that the Kelly committee has done and we should applaud that and I wouldn't want to take anything away from it - but there are details of this that, in terms of sheer practicality, don't stand up to too close scrutiny. The thought of some parliamentary estate agency deciding whether or not I qualify for a one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, house with a garden because I've got a dog or a cat is a nightmare.
2.13pm: Roger Gale's wife, Suzy, has been having a go too. She is one of five parliamentary spouses who have issued a joint statement criticising the proposal to ban the employment of relatives.
A number of working spouses made submissions to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and some gave evidence in person, in the expectation that the unique nature of the job that we do would be recognised. Sadly this has proven not to be the case. The proposed transitional arrangements do not address or recognise the value of existing arrangements.
The other signatories are Sally Hammond, the wife of Stephen Hammond MP, Eve Burt, the wife of Alistair Burt MP, Steven Wilson, the husband of Angela Smith MP, and Phil Cole, the husband of Caroline Flint MP (and the chap who's worried about the bedroom police - see my 8.56am post).
2.26pm: Steve Webb on his blog likes the idea of a central agency hiring flats for MPs (unlike Roger Gale - see 2.06pm).
To be honest if there had been somewhere available to rent as soon as I was elected in 1997 I would have immediately opted for that.
2.29pm: We've just been handed a copy of a letter that John Bercow has sent to all MPs. The key message seems to be: Don't make a fuss.
The principle of fundamental reform has surely been established. The public would not look kindly on anything which was perceived as deliberate procrastination.
But Bercow does seem to allow for the possibility of some proposals being modified.
There is much that can be added to the debate about the practicability of individual measures which the Ipsa will have to contemplate, and there is the chance to express concern about any unintended consequences of the proposed changes.
3.02pm: I've just been skimming the full report. Here are a few more points worth flagging up.
* Kelly acknowledges that parliament has already started to reform the expenses system. "But that process has, at best, been disjointed," the report says.
* The inquiry cost £393,000.
* Peers need to read the report. Although it only cover the Commons, it says "on matters relating to expenses there ought to be a consistent approach between the two chambers".
* MPs who choose to stay in a hotel, instead of renting, will be able to claim around £120 a night for a hotel in London, or £100 a night for a hotel outside. That's the going rate, the report says. Under the old system, some MPs were claiming much more for hotel accommodation.
* Sam Coates at the Times is saying Kelly wants MPs to live in one-bedroom flats in Camberwell. That's his take on the passage in the report about the cost of London rents. MPs can now only claim up to £1,250 a month in rent and Kelly suggests that's appropriate, although he says it's up to Ipsa to set a limit. Kelly says the average monthly rent for a one-bed flat in Victoria (where 161 MPs live) is £1,582. But the average monthly rent for a one-bed flat in Kennington is £966 and in Camberwell it's £802. Kelly seems to think some MPs should move.
* On "wife-swapping", Kelly says there would be nothing wrong with an MP employing the relative of another MP, provided that there is a fair and open recruitment process.
* Ipsa should take over responsibility for setting MPs' pay from the SSRB.
* Earlier (at 11.25am) I said that the idea of having two members of the public on the standards and privileges committee would be unprecedented. Actually, it's not. The report says that lay members have sat on the members estimate audit committee. I'm not sure this will reassure MPs. One of the lay members on the members estimate audit committee (a committee that used to oversee expenses) was the dreaded Sir Thomas Legg.
3.21pm: I'm wrapping up now. Time to summarise where we stand.
How draconian are these proposals? They are probably not as bad as some MPs feared. Kelly has allowed Ipsa discretion in some areas, such as deciding which MPs live within commuting distance of London. Overall, these proposals will still have a pretty severe effect on the income of some MPs. But MPs were expecting that.
Will MPs revolt? The answer seems to be no. If Roger Gale is the most prominent figure to criticise the Kelly report in public, then the report is likely to survive intact. That doesn't mean MPs like the plans - they don't particularly - and it doesn't mean that they won't try to amend some of them. But, from what I've seen and heard so far, it's hard to imagine MPs overturning any of the key recommendations.
How and when will the new rules be implemented? By the time of the election. Harriet Harman said that MPs will not be allowed to vote on the rules and she is not keen on even allowing MPs to have a debate. And the Ipsa chairman has said the new system should be ready to be put in place "early next spring", ie in time for the new parliament.
That's it. Thanks for the comments.
- guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment