Article in Diplomat Magazine- May 2009
15 May 2009
At a time when we should be focused on great national and international issues – the economy, and education, and health, the situation in Afghanistan, the troubles in the Middle East and in Sri Lanka, and one could go on and on – Westminster has been in the grip of expenses fever. Let me try, therefore, in a moment of calm, to reflect on the extraordinary events during Parliament’s far from merry month of May.
When I entered the House of Commons in 1970 there was a parliamentary salary of £3,250.00 and we could claim the cost of transport between London and our constituencies (though not within our constituencies). We had one allowance, of £1,000, towards the employment of a secretary. It was, frankly, impossible to perform your parliamentary and constituency duties properly without some extra source of income. The consequence was that it was very difficult for those who were not wealthy, or who did not have support from, for instance, a Trade Union, to pursue a parliamentary career. I quickly discovered that if I was going to have anything like a reasonably normal family life I would have to use my talents to earn some money outside, which is why, for instance, I produced six books between 1978 and 1984.
By then it had been decided that, because it would be seen as unacceptable to give Members a large wage increase, a system of allowances should be introduced. So, over the years the allowances have grown. Even today a Member’s salary is significantly lower than the salary of the head teacher of a decent sized school, or a family doctor, or a dentist, or – and again one could go on. Suffice it to say that there is no business or professional person whom I have helped over recent years who has not been earning considerably more than my parliamentary salary. All this is by way of background, and certainly not by way of excuse.
Had the allowances been used in the way in which they had been intended to be used there would have been no public outcry. I happen to believe that most members have acted not only within the letter, but within the spirit, of the rules and the notes for guidance. What is all too clear, however, is that a significant number have indulged in a high degree of creative thinking, generally having sought the approval of the Fees Office, and indeed sometimes, it would appear, with their positive encouragement. For no claim is ever paid without a proper submission.
In a short article one cannot go into details or give lengthy explanations, but it is clear beyond any doubt that the system has been abused, and must be completely over-hauled. An independent committee, under the greatly respected Sir Christopher Kelly, a former senior Civil servant, is now considering the whole issue of pay and allowances, and will be reporting in the autumn with, I trust, recommendations that will be quickly implemented. In the meantime party leaders have been seeking to instruct their members to obey their rules so as to try and reassure an increasingly sceptical and disillusioned public that taxpayers’ money is not being used for such questionable purposes as property speculation. In that context I hope the Kelly report will recommend that the second home should normally be the London home, and that it should be rented.
We cannot, of course, merely mark time and wait for Kelly. Our greatest democratic institution has been damaged to an unprecedented degree. It is nothing short of a constitutional tragedy that there should be such lack of faith in the parliamentary system. What is needed immediately is for a Speaker to be chosen who can exercise proper leadership within parliament, something the present Speaker has, sadly, failed to provide. A Speaker of the House of Commons should always be above party and above faction. For the Speaker, far more that the party leaders, is the one who embodies and represents the institution of Parliament, and who must do everything to protect Parliament’s integrity
We do not want to return to a situation where only the rich, or the political obsessive, wish to stand for Parliament, or are able to do so. The new system, however it is balanced and constituted, must be open to inspection, but not to abuse. Of course the best solution of all would be for Members to have a salary and no expenses, other than those directly paid, as they currently are, to a Member’s staff. And there should be fewer of us as well – but that is another story.
