The Liberal Democrat policy on MPs' expenses

• [May 11]: WE have long argued that the expenses system needs to change and we have fought against attempts to restrict freedom of information requests about MPs' expenses.

In April Nick Clegg put forward radical proposals for a new way forward that went beyond what Gordon Brown or David Cameron suggested. The latest revelations are bad for politicians of all parties and are causing great damage to the reputation Parliament; there is an urgent need for reform so that this will not be allowed to happen again.

• Background:

Lib Dem MPs have led the opposition to attempts by some Labour and Conservative MPs to exempt MPs from freedom of information laws. In the 2006-7 session senior Conservative MP David Maclean, a former chief whip for the party, introduced a private member's bill, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which would have exempted both Houses of Parliament from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The effect would have been to remove any obligation for details of MPs' expenses to be made public.

On 20th April 2007 the Bill was 'talked out' by Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, with assistance from Simon Hughes and a handful of MPs from other parties. But on 18th May 2007 it came back and was voted through by Labour and Conservative MPs. 96 MPs (plus two tellers) voted for the Bill at third reading - a majority of them Labour but with a significant number of Tories (and no Lib Dems). In addition to these 98, a further 21 backed (or were tellers at) the closure motion which enabled the third reading vote to take place before the Bill ran out of time.

Both the Labour minister and Conservative spokesman said they were neutral on the bill. All Lib Dem speakers, including spokesman Simon Hughes, spoke against the Bill and the party's then leader, Ming Campbell urged MPs of all parties to reject it. (You can read a report on the debate at http://tinyurl.com/foibill). Thankfully the high profile campaigning against the Bill paid dividends and the Bill ultimately fell because not one peer was willing to sponsor it in the House of Lords.

• Attempts to strengthen FOI laws:

Norman Baker, early in 2007, won a legal challenge to House of Commons secrecy. As a result, Parliament was forced to declare how much each MP has claimed in travel expenses broken down according to whether it was by car, rail, air or bicycle.

Tom Brake, then the party's local government spokesman, introduced a '10 minute rule' bill in the 2006-7 session which would have -

(a) removed the veto which allows ministers to overrule the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal on FOI requests

(b) introduced a time limit for responses to public-interest FOI requests

(c) brought school academies and large private contractors working for public authorities within the scope of FOI legislation

The Bill did not get government support and failed to get through.

• Support for toughening up expenses regime:

On 3rd July 2008 an unholy alliance of Labour and Conservative MPs voted down a number of proposals from the cross-party Members Estimates Committee (MEC) for tightening up MPs' expenses and allowances. Among the recommendations rejected were:

• Robust external audit by outside professional teams for quarter of MPs each year (replaced by internal audit proposal);
• Putting audit for MPs on same basis as for other public bodies;
• Reducing the receipt threshold from £25 to zero so that all claims, however small, would have had to be backed by receipts.

The MPs who voted to reject this toughening up of the expenses rules were 146 Labour MPs (plus two tellers), 21 Conservatives and 2 independents. No Lib Dem MP voted against it. The following day Nick Clegg committed the Lib Dems to unilaterally introducing the recommendations of the MEC, including independent spot checks of MPs expenses.

• Nick Clegg's proposals on expenses:

On 9th April 2009, Nick Clegg set out proposals for urgent reform of the rules on MP expenses, based on the following principles:

1) Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent;

2) All expenses have to be justified on the basis of enabling MPs to do their job;

3) Reform should not increase, and should ideally reduce, the total cost of politics to the taxpayer.

The proposals include:

• Personal additional accommodation expenditure should be restricted to rental agreements (no help with house purchases), utility bills, and council tax;
• Payment of personal accommodation expenditure should be on the basis of the production of bills and rental agreement only;
• Designation of first and second homes should be independently approved to ensure that payments reflect the necessary circumstances of Members in fulfilling their parliamentary duties and value for money to the tax payer.

Related Links

• • [May 11]: Speaker's expenses rant renders House speechless