The MPs' expenses regime is stupid

If David Laws were to try and book a room for the next three nights at a Premier Inn close to Westminster the cheapest to be found would be at Kensington Olympia. It would cost him £336.

Multiply that by a House of Commons working year of, say 35 weeks, and the cost would be £11,760.

It is reported that David Laws claimed £40,000 over nine years for accommodation, paying the money to his landlord/friend rather than to a commercial concern. This seems to me like a good financial deal for the taxpayer; it's certainly a very great deal less than many MPs have claimed for mortgage interest payments.

How did the Commons ever get itself into the position when it has to examine the status of private relationships before determining whether accommodation expenses can be paidt? Why should David Laws have publicly to try and define his relationship with his 'partner'?

The European Parliament system is entirely different. MEPs are not paid expenses but a daily allowance intended to cover accommodation and subsistence costs. They can pass it all on to swell the profits of Mr Hilton or Messrs Holiday Inn, or they can sleep on the park bench and pocket the lot.

The amount (€298) can certainly be criticised as excessive, but at least the arrangement doesn't require moralistic scrutiny by officials paid more than the elected representatives.

As Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws had the task of proposing cuts in public expenditure. His authority was bound to be undermined by claims that he had not followed the rules to the letter.

But the rules are stupid. The House of Commons should never have adopted them.

Each MP is the elected representative for a constituency of 80,000 people or more. Their current salary is £64,766,

Of course it can be argued that MPs should only be paid the average wage. Or that they should be paid less than this. Or that they should not be paid at all and should be self-funded millionaires. But I think most people will believe that the representative for their constituency should be paid at something close to the rate of the local GP or senior school headteacher - which is a lot more than they get at present - plus a set allowance for living away from home (if they do) for so many days each week..

There should be complete openness and transparency, both about the amount available and the amounts actually claimed, but we should stop micro-managing the way in which MPs use the money paid to them to fulfill the role for which they were elected.

THEY STILL DON'T GET IT

Parliament's budget is getting its annual consideration, so this is the time to consider reforms. A range of proposals have been put to the vote at the Budgetary Control Committee.

REJECTED - attempts to ensure that our procurement policies are transparent, competitive and free from the taint of corruption.

REJECTED - attempts to prevent the will of the parliament not to use taxpayers' money to top up the deficit in the MEPs' pension fund being frustrated by our own governing body.

REJECTED - a bid (from me) to ensure that any MEP has the right to view reports by our internal auditor.

REJECTED - a bid (also by me) to ensure that MEPs need never lose out financially if they regularly buy non-transferable economy air tickets instead of business class ones.

An alliance between the right of centre (EPP) and the left of centre groups ripped the guts out of the reform proposals.

Now the parties who want reform must table some key amendments on core issues of principle. For the votes in parliament we need to rally our side to defeat the forces of darkness.

PUBLISH ALL TAX RETURNS

Council officers earning more than £150,000 are required now to reveal full details of their salary package. There are strong demands for the BBC to make clear how much it pays top personalities. And the salary and expenses paid to politicians is already made known.

So why stop there? If some council officers have to reveal financial details then why not all public sector employees? And why should such a disclosure rule apply only to the public sector? Let's make it universal.

It's not as outrageous an idea as you might think. In Norway the tax returns of every citizen are published on the internet. Sweden and Finland also make much personal tax information available everywhere.

Let it all hang out, treat it as a matter of routine, the result will be a healthier society (and a bit less tax avoidance!). It might even lead to a reduction in the gross income inequalities that exist in Britain.

Some people would be embarrassed to have details published of the payments they receive. But maybe that's because they have good reason to be embarrassed.

NAME THE 'DIRTY CHEATING BASTARD'

It would be so easy to find myself hoisted by my own petard, accused of hypocrisy and with my words turned against me. There will be europhobe journalists out there just itching to put me down with a big headline.

In my angry speech at Liberal Democrat conference my venom was directed against those MEPs who took advantage of the slack procedures of the last Parliament to milk the system, finding ways to divert their office and staff salary budgets into their own pockets to the tune of hundreds of thousands each year.

The arrangements have been changed now. Opportunities for downright graft have gone but scope for unethical behaviour still exists, albeit on a much smaller scale. Reforms based on independent setting of payments, some straightforward cuts, and complete transparency are still needed.

The plain fact is that my personal income has increased by more than an average person's wage since the June election and I am only now starting to appreciate this. With the value of the pound going down the pan the salary of British MEPs has gone up (temporarily perhaps) AND pension contributions are made on top of it. An outrageous travel payment scheme from which I tried not to benefit personally has been replaced by still lucrative fixed allowances from which I do. And there remains a near €300 a day allowance that more than meets all away-from-home expenses.

Of course I shall move parliamentary amendments to make changes when I get the chance, but what do I do while they throw the gold at me? I don't see why I should put on the hairshirt and declare "I am principled so I won't claim as much as other MEPs:" it wouldn't win me an extra vote from a (rightly in this case) cynical public.

Maybe I should put on a banker's robe, ignore the criticism, and point out that if anyone wants the cash in future all they have to do is to join the Liberal Democrats and beat me for the nomination.

Or maybe I should work extra hard to justify the increase, except that I don't know how to work much harder than I already do.

My guiding thought has always been: "can I stand up in the village hall and defend what I do?" If not I shouldn't do it.
So long as the wealthy local doctor and dentist are sitting on the front row I can defend my new income as a price of democracy - but in some ways the reform in the MEPs' expenses arrangements has made it harder to do so.