The Times, Micheal Portillo,  30/3/2008

The Commons has failed to react to changing times. Indeed, it has been moving backwards

The House of Commons is headed for catastrophe. When the details of members’ expense claims are published, as they are bound to be under freedom of information laws, the public will be appalled. They will see that MPs help themselves to allowances as thinly disguised bonuses.

The fact that most members will have broken no rule will simply add to voters’ outrage. In a few cases, no doubt, the revelations will end parliamentary careers - if the claims appear indefensible, as Derek Conway’s payments to his son were.

The disaster has been brewing for many years. When I entered the Commons, helpful old hands would take me aside to explain what I could claim, indeed what I should claim for the sake of solidarity. It was understood that MPs’ salaries were held artificially low by the pressure of public opinion and that the range of allowances existed to make up for the deficiency.

It was a different era. After many years in which governments had restrained pay throughout the economy, almost every employer frustrated incomes policy by devising payments and benefits that were not classified as salary. It was the heyday of the company car, lavish expense accounts and long boozy lunches.

Outside parliament the world has changed. Taxation of benefits has led employers once more to consolidate perks into salary. The pressures of competition and the bottom line have shortened the lunches and squeezed out the booze. Management accounting systems have enabled bosses to control expense accounts more tightly. As the Information Tribunal commented, when ordering that the claims of 14 MPs be published, the “laxity” of Commons rules is “very different” from practice in the private sector. Most significantly, the public today expects higher standards than before in public life and greater transparency.

The Commons has failed to react to changing times. Indeed, it has been moving backwards. MPs have pushed against the restrictions on what they could claim. The rules are set down in broad resolutions of the House, so there is a presumption that anything that is not specifically excluded must be permissible.

For example, about 20 years ago MPs won the argument that the second home allowance should cover mortgage interest and not just rent. It was regarded as a triumph at the time, but it is a victory that many may now regret. The public will find it hard to understand why a member with a seat in the home counties, for example, needs a second home at all, especially now that the House rarely sits late into the night. Still less will the public comprehend why the taxpayer has enabled the member to make a huge capital gain, perhaps on a house that is miles from the constituency.

Even if the Commons had better appreciated the pace of change taking place around it and the growing threat to its cosy ways from freedom of information petitions, it is difficult to see how it could have responded effectively. It lacks leadership and organisation. Members are regarded as being self-employed.

The House authorities – chiefly its civil servants – have tried to introduce systems, for example, to standardise payments to secretaries. However, there are and should be limits to how much MPs are standardised. They are not the employees of a government department but the servants of their electors.

Still, in the absence of internal leadership, the government has often imposed its will. It uses its muscle to restrain the Commons from voting itself egregious pay increases. Even so, no government has taken on the issue of MPs’ allowances. To do so might have been constitutionally outrageous. It would have met massive resistance from members and would probably have resulted in defeat. However, the lack of reform will now bring the entire parliamentary system into disrepute and the government, as well as the Commons, will be damaged.

It would be unfair to attack the Speaker for not preempting this scandal. It is not the Speaker’s role to initiate reform. However, Michael Martin, the present Speaker, is unfortunately entangled in the mess. His wife’s expense claims for taxi rides have been held up to the light. His press spokesman has resigned after being wrongly briefed and misleading the media. Martin has given the impression of being against transparency – or at least slow to move.

The Commons made an error in choosing a Labour Speaker in succession to Betty Boothroyd (also Labour) during a Labour government. A Speaker chosen from the opposition party is less likely to be suspected of being a government stooge.

Martin has never performed with fiery independence and has lacked the confidence and authority of his predecessor. The House cannot turn to him to lead it into a new era of transparency. He has the instincts of an old Labour fixer and this crisis demands quite different skills.

It is most unusual for the Speaker to be criticised in the media. That, too, is a sign of changing times. Following the unfavourable press comments on his expense claims, the Commons roared in approval when he next entered the chamber and the Speaker beamed back with pleasure. The outside world might interpret both reactions as signalling that the Commons is an insiders’ club contemptuous of public opinion.

Voters will be incensed too by the £1.7m refurbishment of the Speaker’s official home. But that is a different issue. It requires maintaining with the rest of the historic Palace of Westminster and all such work is necessarily expensive. It seems unlikely that Speaker Martin will remain in the post to enjoy it for long.

Last week’s decision by the House authorities (the Speaker and senior members) to appeal to the High Court against publishing the 14 specimen cases looks desperate. It was, in any case, another example of hugger-mugger policy-making.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat MP who is one of the 14 MPs singled out by campaigners, complained that he had not been consulted about the appeal. It was announced outside the House by a spokeswoman who is not an MP. When David Winnick, the Labour member, asked in the House about the grounds for the appeal, the Speaker told him that the matter was now sub judice and the Commons could not discuss it.

Evidently the authorities want to keep MPs’ addresses secret. It is not a strong point. It is rather late to be flustered about MPs’ privacy and security. At a time when the IRA not infrequently tried to murder MPs, electoral law required that the addresses of all candidates (including incumbents) be displayed on posters throughout the constituency.

The authorities can hope only to buy some time with the appeal and the House is unlikely to make good use of it. Its various committees are making heavy weather of reform. Granted, they have decided that MPs should be required to produce receipts for claims above £25 rather than £250 as before. So the Commons is tiptoeing towards safety while a tidal wave races towards it.

It needs urgently to announce a replacement for the second homes scheme. The idea that it should be simply rolled up into an increase in pay of £23,000 for all members is a nonstarter. The media and public would be in uproar, the government would have to oppose it and it would reward those MPs who have no need for two homes.

For any solution to win public support, MPs must be seen to lose something. For example, they can no longer expect to pocket a capital gain if the mortgage is financed by the taxpayer. There must also be a stricter definition of who needs a second home. Many MPs who need occasionally to stay either in London or their constituency could receive a per diem allowance backed up by receipts.

In truth, the disaster cannot now be averted. Even if reforms were implemented tomorrow the freedom of information campaigners have won access to yesterday’s records and before long the claims of every MP will be laid bare.

Still, it would be better if the House could by then show that it had turned over a new leaf. In fact, as the maelstrom develops the Commons will still be floundering over what changes to make. Even as the careers of some are ignominiously ended, others will fight on to retain financial privileges that were devised in a bygone age.