THE KELLY REPORT
Standards chairman proposes expenses cuts

Recommendations for radical reform of the parliamentary expenses system were unveiled last week by Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life. He proposes that MPs should be banned from employing family members and from claiming mortgage interest on a second home. Kelly also said that MPs should be able to claim only for rent on a London property, while those living within an hour’s commute of parliament should be allowed to claim only hotel costs. In addition, he recommends banning claims for cleaning, gardening and furnishing, and cutting the resettlement grant offered to MPs who choose to stand down from a maximum of £64,000 to just eight weeks’ pay.

ROOTS OF SCANDAL
Newspapers’ revelations of abuse forced change

Kelly was commissioned by Gordon Brown to look into the issue of MPs’ expenses after newspaper reports exposed abuses of the allowances system. Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, was revealed to have claimed more than £116,000 over six years by saying a room in her sister’s house was her main home. Another minister, Tony McNulty, was found to have claimed more than £60,000 on a house lived in by his parents. The recommendations can become law only if adopted by a new watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), after another period of consultation. This is not likely to happen until after the next election, expected in May.

BACKBENCH BACKLASH
Some MPs are still defiant about reform

All three main party leaders have given their backing to Kelly’s proposals, but many MPs, including the Tory Alan Duncan are angry about them. Last week, Roger Gale, a Conservative MP, branded as “arrogant” the idea that MPs “must accept this report lock, stock and barrel”. However, Harriet Harman ruled out giving MPs a vote on the reforms. Some MPs are also rebelling against demands for them to repay expenses. Sir Thomas Legg, who is investigating MPs’ claims back to 2004 and ruling on who should make repayments, is understood to have complained that dozens of MPs are deliberately being slow in responding to his requests for information. They apparently hope to delay matters and avoid repayments before they stand down next year.

THE SALARY QUESTION
Should MPs be paid more and, if so, how much?

MPs from all sides complained last week that Kelly’s proposals to reduce expenses could lead to parliament becoming the preserve of the rich. Vera Baird, the solicitor-general, said there was “a danger that people who are just ordinary” would be “priced out” of politics by the reforms. To compensate, some MPs want higher salaries. Sir Stuart Bell, who sits on the members estimate committee, hinted last week that a pay rise from £64,000 to £89,000 a year could soften the blow. However, the head of the IPSA watchdog, Sir Ian Kennedy, who was appointed last week, has cast doubt on the reform process. He said he was “under no obligation” to implement Kelly’s recommendations.

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads