Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): They just don't get it. The Times reveals today that Jack Straw leaned on the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the so-called sleaze watchdog (though it is more than that), to drop plans for an inquiry into the abuse of MPs' expenses a year ago. The report suggests that Straw, then Leader of the House, put pressure on the Committee not to conduct an inquiry into staffing, housing and travel expenses because he was worried that his backbench MPs would rebel. Already the political obfuscation process is in full swing. But let's try and inject some clarity into the debate with five points:
- Every MP we on Democratic Audit have spoken too for some time acknowledges that abuse of housing and travel expenses is commonplace, as well as the widespread employment of family members (sometimes an abuse, as with Derek Conway, more often perhaps not). We applied for a grant at the time for an in depth and wider-ranging look at corruption in politics: no way, Jose.
- MPs as a whole are adamantly opposed to any wide-ranging inquiry into the Augean stable in Westminster.
- As we understand it, none of the three main party leaders endorses an independent inquiry into MPs' expenses (can this really be true of Nick Clegg; if so, please can the Lib Dems re-run their leadership election).
- MPs are paranoid about transparency anyway - remember their cross-party conspiracy to block FOI at Westminster.
- There is also abuse among members of the House of Lords where the regulation regime is even looser.
There are bigger issues here as well:
- Many MPs use their research and office money to shore up their electoral position in their constituencies, thus strengthening the "incumbency" advantage at election time.
- The Committee on Standards is a mere quango that the PM can abolish at any time - which clearly means that it is in a weak position to take a stand (though the previous chairman, Sir Alastair Graham, got up Blair's nose on several occasions, especially when de-mob happy, and the present chairman may well be ready to prove his mettle).
- MPs as a body constitute a significant obstacle to reform proposals that threaten their position, and not just on salaries and expenses. The most obvious example is on electoral reform where they are generally opposed to the introduction of proportional voting systems, as too many of them would perish (though they are less against the Alternative Vote, that is even more disproportional than first past the post, for more of them would survive).
Peter Hain has been a prominent advocate of AV, which would probably cement a Lib-Lab coalition in government and dish the Tories. His clinching argument? "Turkeys won't vote for Christmas"
