Analysis: Expenses scandal's enduring potential

Tuesday, 3 November 2009 12:00 AM

MPs have been fervently praying Sir Christopher Kelly's expenses review will finally put the scandal to bed. As the last few days have shown, this one is going to run all the way to polling day.

By Alex Stevenson

It turns out it's the new expenses watchdog which has the power to "edit" Sir Christopher's reforms. "The prime minister is never powerless, in any sense," Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted yesterday in response to the suggestion this meant he couldn't do anything about the recommendations. Assembled journalists were rather amused, but the neurosis underlying the remark was rather telling.

Throughout the expenses scandal Downing Street has been afflicted by a knee-jerk impulse to get involved. Brown's initial proposals for reform were warmly rebuffed by MPs; now, in the run-up to Sir Christopher's root-and-branch recommendations, the government has waded in with its usual blustering confidence.

On Sunday Harriet Harman pressured Kelly to water down his leaked proposal to ban MPs' spouses from working with their other halves. On Monday Brown pressured Kelly to make sure future MPs wouldn't be put off. No 10 commissioned the report, but won't be charged with implementing it. That doesn't seem to be of great concern to those in power. It's not helping, as the very quiet David Cameron realises.

Nor is the state of play in parliament, where MPs find themselves confronted with the latest demands from Sir Thomas Legg. Having initially quibbled with MPs about minor claims, the expenses auditor is now moving on to much bigger mortgage interest queries. Those who fail to provide statements could find themselves forced to pay the money back.

Regardless of Kelly, the ongoing grumbling about his imposition of retrospective rules will ensure the story gets talked about as autumn turns to winter. Most MPs have realised they should pay up and keep as quiet as possible. But many find themselves in different circumstances. The size of the majority to be defended, the extent of the abuses, make each case different. Those who feel they've been wronged will not hesitate to speak out.

In doing so they are demonstrating the self-interest which got them into this mess in the first place. Collectively it makes complete sense for MPs to quietly engage in damage-limitation as much as possible. Yet those who find themselves having to pay back tens of thousands of powers must put number one first. By so doing they prolong the agony for everyone else, increasing the scandal's potency at the coming general election.

MPs were reminded of public anger by Peter Tatchell and his band of protestors outside parliament on Friday. The Vote for a Change coalition was calling for electoral reform, but its Halloween theme could just as easily apply to the parliament of the living dead. Come polling day the expenses scandal is going to finish many of today's lawmakers for good.

Tags:
• analysis