We have recently seen the conclusion of Sir Thomas Legg’s investigation into MPs’ expense claims. In the wake of this report, the behaviour of some MPs continues to hold our attention and earn our contempt. Many of our elected representatives in their self-regulated world seem incredibly detached from the realities of public opinion.
There is one MP who appears to have claimed more than £100,000 in expenses because of designating her five-bedroom family house as her second home. Apparently there is no need to pay back this money and an apology will do. This outcome is bizarre when you compare it with the punishment meted out to “ordinary” people for lesser mistakes that they have made.
Some MPs try to defend their position by saying that they were not breaking any rules. This misses the point that they made the self-serving rules themselves and means that the central charge is that their system of self regulation was itself wrong and indefensible. Some of the expense claims produced by the system show forgetfulness of the principle that participation in public life should involve a degree of selflessness.
Second home benefits for MPs should be seen as being accessible based on need rather than as an absolute benefit entitlement. If an MP has two, three or more homes anywhere but not usable as a second home inLondon, they should not expect the taxpayer to support a new purchase in any way. Instead, it is reasonable that they use their existing assets to support residency in a second home for parliamentary duties.
This approach is entirely consistent with the way that local authorities allocate affordable housing. If an applicant owns or part-owns a property inBritainor abroad, they can join the waiting list but they cannot be offered accommodation while they have those ownership arrangements. It is vital that we move away from the expectation that an elite group can somehow enjoy more favourable treatment than the people who make them what they are.
Beyond the expenses scandal, I hope that we can see a greater realisation amongst MPs of the need for focus on the parliamentary role. It is right that our representatives should have some outside interests to assist with staying in touch and developing skills that go beyond mere political practice. At the same time, these outside interests can be taken to excess and be of dubious value in communicating with the real world.
Directorships can be fine – in moderation. They hardly come across as the most useful past time for meeting and understanding the needs of the mass of our constituents. Thinking of Directors’ board rooms, surely there are less insular places on this Earth for us to practice community engagement?
Councillor Bob Lanzer, Leader of Crawley Borough Council
14th October 2009