Why Commons is still smarting over the ‘John Lewis’ allowances

Mar 22 2008 by Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail

ANYONE who believes MPs are out of touch with the world outside Westminster will roll their eyes at the news that Parliament starts its Easter break on April 3, more than a week after everyone else celebrates Easter itself.

So perhaps it’s appropriate that, casting around for topics to debate in the dog days between the bank holiday and the recess, MPs have alighted on the question of their own financial affairs. No subject has exposed divisions between public and politicians in quite the same way as the controversy over MPs’ expenses.

Derek Conway, the hapless Tory MP, lit the fuse earlier this year when he paid his student son £40,000 of public money over three years for doing we know not what.

Ever since that came to light, incendiary devices have been going off all over Westminster, culminating in the release of the “John Lewis list” – the maximum sums MPs, based on the store’s prices, are allowed to spend on household items as part of their £23,000 second home allowance. The existence of the list, not to mention the fact that £250 could be claimed without a receipt, came as a surprise to many MPs, but the damage is done and public perceptions altered, perhaps for good. No wonder one mild-mannered MP told me this week Mr Conway would be “lynched” if he ever returns to the Commons.

Next week MPs debate their pensions and the call from the Standards and Privileges Committee for a register of MPs’ relatives employed at public expense. Meanwhile a legal challenge is under way to a ruling from the Information Commissioner saying the addresses of MPs’ London pads should be made public. And a separate ruling on the breakdown of expenses (rather than the total) means the whole lot will, eventually, have to be revealed, right down to the sideboards (maximum cost £795) and the shredders (£50).

Small wonder several senior MPs are considering retiring at the next election, not because they’ve done anything wrong, but from a simple dislike of such a high level of disclosure. They know too it’ll be months, maybe even years, before the issue is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction – because there are no easy answers.

Allowances could be scrapped altogether, replaced by higher basic salaries. But as AMs discovered recently, above-inflation pay rises aren’t a very good way to restore public confidence. The no-receipt clause is being reformed, and better publicising of the fact that a lot of detail on MPs’ expenses is already available would help a bit. I’ve always been baffled as to why MPs employ family members anyway – an anachronism that may soon be on its way out.

Thursday’s debate thus becomes an interesting barometer of the mood. Will MPs be falling over themselves to suggest changes? Or will there be passionate arguments for the status quo? For once, the voters might be listening to a Westminster debate very carefully indeed.