Parliament faces a tough few months. The party conferences are over and MPs and peers are returning after a near 12-week recess. But some familiar problems are about to reappear. The expenses row, which has been largely dormant since July, is set to reignite, threatening not only the future of many MPs but also to dominate the period running up to the general election.
There are several ingredients. First, the review of parliamentary expenses by the Committee on Standards in Public Life under Sir Christopher Kelly will report later this month. This will cover many of the issues raised by the Daily Telegraph revelations last spring, such as mortgage payments on second homes and employing family members as staff.
Second, in response, the government, opposition parties and the Commons authorities will have to decide whether to revise the legislation hastily passed in July to set up the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The Act is a mess, with a statutory and non-statutory commissioner. The original proposals were heavily amended during their parliamentary passage, by defeat or government concession. So provisions for new criminal offences for MPs breaking rules on registration of interests or being paid by lobbyists to ask questions were removed.
Third, and most important of all, the official review of MPs’ expenses by Sir Thomas Legg, a distinguished former permanent secretary, is due to be published. MPs will be receiving letters analysing their expense claims for the past five years and will then have a chance to comment.
Rumours are already circulating that several dozen will have to repay sizeable amounts of money – and that not only will several be forced to resign at the election but some might have to do so immediately.
Fourth, it is not just the Commons. The Lords has had its own problems over the financial interests of peers: the suspension of two peers after a cash-for-questions sting operation; and allegations about abuse of expenses, in some cases subject to police investigation. A committee under Lord Eames is expected to report very soon on a new code of conduct, covering outside interests, and also whether there should be a new investigator of complaints.
The Senior Salaries Review Body will also report this autumn on the remuneration of peers. At present, peers receive a non-taxable payment to cover the daily costs of attending the Lords, as well as for housing costs. It is widely recognised that this system is unsatisfactory, but it will be hard to devise a new framework that takes account of the widely different circumstances and attendances of peers.
The combination of these different reviews could mean that public anger against Westminster and elected politicians re-emerges in an even stronger form than before. Of course, the general election offers a chance for a clear-out of wrongdoers – if they have not stepped down beforehand, or been dumped by their own parties.
This will apply across the board, but the Tories, as the party on the up, are likely to be able to present the freshest face. If they manage to win an overall Commons majority, still a tall order, then two-thirds of the new Conservative parliamentary party will be new to the Commons.
But changing the personnel is only half the story if voters are to believe that politics has been properly cleaned up. New rules and regulations in both the Commons and the Lords need to be put in place by the general election, so that the next Parliament can start off on a fresh basis.
It is not just about parliamentary expenses. It is also about the effectiveness of the Commons, to show that MPs are holding government to account, scrutinising legislation and responding directly to public concerns. A special cross-party committee under Tony Wright, the Labour chair of the public administration select committee, is expected to report on options for change by mid-November.
The prospects for reform are in the balance, though shadow Commons leader Sir George Young gave them a boost at the Conservative conference, unveiling a broad package to strengthen backbenchers and select committees.
Parliament will be judged on how it responds to these challenges before the general election. There is not much time. Business as usual will not be enough, and will be punished by voters.
Peter Riddell is chief political commentator of The Times and a senior fellow of the Institute for Government
