In a speech, Speaker John Bercow has claimed that:

I cannot think of a single year in the recent history of Parliament when more damage has been done to it than this year, with the possible exception of when Nazi bombs fell on the chamber in 1941.

The destruction of Parliament by Nazi bombs in 1941 caused damage to the the building, not to parliament itself. All the bomb did was destroy the Commons chamber, what MPs have managed to do is destroy much of people’s trust in Parliament.

The difference is that …

Apparently “it is thought up to 50 MPs are thought to have refused to respond or told Sir Thomas that they will not pay back the money, delaying his final report”.
Any MPs who refuse to pay back the money should have it automatically docked from their pay – with the full amount due to be paid back by the time of the next election. And if they refuse to do this, any redundancy pay they would have received should they be voted out must be held back – even if …

After the expenses scandal of late, respect for and trust in MPs and politicians of all levels has deteriorated even further. Changes need to be made, that fact is incontrovertible. But what changes?
The first and most obvious one is in regards to MPs expenses themselves. The Kelly Report is a good start with this, even though I disgaree with one or two bits (primarily the complete ban on MPs employing spouses) and think that there are some that should be added. It will take time, but once it is implemented …

This year’s Queen’s Speech was an obvious and shameless electioneering event by a government on the way out. Most of these bills have little or no chance of being law – and a number of them seem to purely be attempts to bind the next government with various “targets” which Labour want to enshrine in law just so that they can paint the Conservatives in unflattering lights.
But there is one bill in this that is a good bill, and one that must become law as soon as possible: the Flood …

All MPs have been pretty much ordered by the party leaders to comply with the repayments requested by Sir Thomas Legg – or else. But they’re moaning about it.
However, has Legg screwed up? Has he made errors? If he has, rather than helping fix our democracy and draw a line under this whole issue he has done us a disservice. Errors so far claimed to have been made by Legg include:

A number of requests for repayments due to double reimbursements which did not happen
Mortgage documents requested from MPs who rent, …

Just as the MP expenses saga re-ignites, former Speaker Michael Martin who was ousted from his role in the Commons due to his complete mismanagement of the expenses system, is sworn in as a peer.
Do the Parliamentary timetablers have a sense of humour?

The MP’s expenses saga lives again, thanks to Sir Thomas Legg, the man who has reviewed all expenses claims. He has written to all MPs and asked many to repay money.
But they’re moaning about it.
They should just shut up and give us our money back. We’ll even work out a re-payment plan! Repaying cold hard cash, not just making a brief apology!
The Legg letters may not be legally enforceable as they stand, but any MP who refuses to comply with them will be pilloried. And deserves to be. Just because …

A Guest post by Matt Wardman.

Sir Thomas Legg, who has reported into the last 5 years of MP’s Expense claims at Gordon Brown’s request, has written to a large number of MPs, with three potential courses of action:

1. Pay back monies which Sir Thomas Legg feels have been claimed improperly.
2. MPs requested to supply him with further information.
3. No further action required.

According to the Telegraph, MPs are threatening to defy orders to repay the taxpayer over questionable expenses claims – with possible legal action by MPs who think that the “rules” have been effectively redefined after the fact by Sir Thomas.

The Telegraph suggests that he has applied a “reasonableness test” to items such as excessive bills for cleaning or gardening, even where they were approved by the fees office, and that Lord Mandelbrot is not very happy about Sir Thomas’ actions.

MP’s Expenses have become a lightening conductor and icon for a disfunctional system of political representation, and have directed the spotlight onto the governance of our Parliament and political process.

We have seen some welcome moves towards making a start in beginning to consider a more representative political system (yes – I think it is that nebulous), and we have seen a lot of brave words which have yet to be matched by deeds.

But what about MPs and their Expenses?

I’m returning to the principle I first posted in February 2008, as part of our “House Rules for MPs” report.

I’d like to see the arrangents for politicians be as close as possible to those experienced by the normal population. I see that as a way to bring more sanity into some aspects of the ordinary system, as well as making our politicians more transparent as a route to restored confidence.

And also to the fundamental principle which has always been in place in the “Green Book” Guide to Parliamentary Allowances. This is the 1971 version:

The Additional Costs Allowance reimburses “for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence…for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.”

And this is the 2009 text:

Members are cautioned against instances “where they may appear to be vulnerable to criticism or accusations of impropriety.” It also reminds MPs that their conduct should be placed concepts of “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.”

My view of the Legg measures

The strongest proposals in the Legg measures are for repayment of some expenses’ claims.

It seems to me that the basic principles above justify a requirement for full restitution, and that the intentions of those making the claims, and incompetence, collusion, or even corruption in the Parliamentary administration, are not especially relevant.

For a principle of “treat MPs like the rest of us”, then we need to remember that if I make a mistake (or a “mistake”) in my own Expenses, error, misunderstanding or bad advice is no excuse, and the monies must be repaid with the likely addition of interest and a penalty.

I think that these measures should be applied. Equally, if in law the “reasonableness” test applied by Sir Thomas Legg is not valid, then this test should be set aside.

For the sake of our politics this needs to be pursued straight down the line, all the way.

And then we have to get on to everything from the Westminster-bubble Gold-Plated Parliamentary pension scheme, to the 6-12 months salary received for MPs “declared redundant” by their Electorate, and allowances in the House of Lords, and all the rest.

This is just the first step on a long road. Gird your loins.