Expenses reform goes a long way to drawing line under scandal

Drawn up by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) the new rules, which come into effect after the election, bar MPs from claiming expenses for second homes and limit them to employing only one family member.

They will be not be able to claim for first-class rail journeys and the maximum they can claim for accommodation and constituency office costs each year will be cut from 56,915 to 40,957.

Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy promised that the new system would mean that MPs would no longer benefit from what he called a slack allowances system.

It is a mark of the level of abuse of the system that it should even be necessary for Sir Ian to say, as he did yesterday, that expenses will be reimbursed only for legitimate costs, and backed up by receipts.

And it is not pushing the bounds of cynicism to assume that MPs would have continued to play the system had not many been exposed as serial exploiters of the procedures which allowed minimum scrutiny and maximum profit.

Of the perks which MPs gave themselves, the most pernicious was the ability to use taxpayers' money to purchase London property and keep the profit when the house or flat was sold. It is right that this should be abolished.

Last night there was an unfortunate lack of clarity on whether current MPs who stand to make money by selling their property will be allowed to do so.

Those who keep their seats and already own taxpayer-funded homes can continue to claim until August 2012 but Sir Ian said profits made would be "recouped". Again, disappointingly, he was unable to give exact details of how he will do this.

But despite the rigour, and the openness of the new system, Sir Ian's decision to relent on the original proposal that spouses or partners should be banned from working for an MP, casts doubt on whether this will be the end of this sorry and demeaning saga.

Although it is argued that this may help marriages survive, the right to employ even one family member could substantially increase MPs' income from the taxpayer and may lead to continued allegations of taxpayer funded largesse – the last thing beleaguered MPs seeking to re-build confidence in democracy will want.

In all, these reforms are welcome but are bound to reinforce calls for rules to prevent MPs having any other paid employment, a move supported at the weekend by the Prime Minister.

Whilst this may seem logical, there is a downside in that it could mean we will only have full-time, professional politicians. Provided the system was open and transparent, there is still a good argument for allowing MPs to continue to be allowed to have outside interests.

Comment:

What a difference an inquiry makes after seven-months' effort