Comment Central: our picks for a new speaker

The scandal of House of Commons expenses has brought into conflict a number of national institutions, namely the press, in this case led by The Daily Telegraph, the Speaker, the House of Commons itself and the Government. The House of Lords has been on the sidelines, but could well be drawn in.

The press at this stage appears to be the winner, and has, almost certainly, won the opening battle of the campaign. But there have been some aspects of the events of the past two weeks that journalists ought to worry about.

At the moment, the sheer scale of the achievement of the Telegraph campaign has distracted attention from these problems. The biggest, which would have been difficult to avoid, is that the campaign has both threatened and humiliated Parliament. Yet in five years’ time Parliament will still be there, and probably in 20 years’ time.

Whatever they may be saying in public, almost all Members of Parliament hate having been humiliated and hate the press for it. The present mood of the House of Commons resembles the mood of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles; MPs resent the press at least as much as the public resent the greed of MPs.

There will be no shortage of opportunites for revenge at a future time when the Government and Parliament feel strong and see the press as weak. A shortlist of grounds for the inevitable counterattack would include the law on privacy, disgust of chequebook journalism, trial by newspaper, lack of due process, purloined evidence, the use of guilt by association, the lack of transparency of the prosecutorial process, the absence of normal judicial protection for defendants, the absence of an effective right to defend oneself, and the assumption of a quasi-judicial function by unqualified people with non-judicial motives.

These are not my personal criticisms; I am, in American terms, a straightforward First Amendment man, a believer in press freedom, and I fully accept the legitimate public interest defence for The Daily Telegraph’s conduct. But anyone who thinks that this press victory will necessarily enhance press freedom in England, in the longer term, is likely to prove mistaken. Politicians have a long memory for humiliation.

In the longer term it is the House of Commons that may benefit most from radical reform, though serious injustices have already been done to individual members, against which it has been virtually impossible for them to defend themselves. The reality is that previous governments developed allowances as an alternative to salary increases for the House of Commons.

These arrangements were not decided by individual backbenchers; a majority of Members of Parliament used these allowances in a responsible way, as well as keeping inside the letter of the law. A minority of members did make exaggerated claims, or what have come to be seen as exaggerated claims. Some also made themselves look silly by claiming for trivial purchases.

The system itself was imprecise. The Fees Office, which had to decide which claims to allow, had no clear definitions to guide it. Nor did the Members. The Speaker, who had the ultimate responsibility, did not exercise proper discipline. Indeed, he was a strong defender of the existing system. Some Members of Parliament went beyond buying pieces of furniture or maintaining their properties and undertook property speculation on public money, which was a clear abuse.

The public did not know how open to abuse the expenses system had become. When they found out they were very shocked. There seem to have been a large number of claims that were in a grey area. A reasonable person might conclude they were quite legitimate, or that they were over the line. In terms of justice, this put great power in the hands of The Daily Telegraph.

One paper should not properly have enjoyed such power in dealing with a major public document that had been purloined. The Speaker would have done well to release the whole document immediately. When a particular claim was put next to clearly exaggerated claims it was likely to become part of a rogues’ gallery. This whipped up public anger. The BBC can also be criticised for its treatment of very different claims in conjunction, as though it were wrong for any member to make any claim, however moderate or justified by the rules.

How can both Houses of Parliament now recover public trust? In the past I have been in favour of retaining the unelected House of Lords, though I had some doubts. The House of Lords will now need to revise its own system of allowances.

I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority. There will also need to be constitutional changes in the House of Commons. The Speaker actually opposed the reform of the present system for expenses. I do not see how he can go on. He is not a bad man, but he has let the House of Commons down.

In my view, there also needs to be a new prime minister, moving rapidly to the election of a new House of Commons. Gordon Brown has been too slow to grasp this problem; David Cameron has been much more decisive. The Labour Party should change its leader. But more than that will be necessary to regain public confidence. This is a major scandal, by any standards. There should be a general election this autumn. It might even help to save some Labour seats that might be lost in the following year.

The public have to be convinced that Britain is being governed by an honest Parliament.

Times Recommends

• The ghost of Robin Cook haunts Chilcot’s feast
• The truth shouldn’t need oaths
• Violence: let’s separate the men from the boys