Last updated at 16:33, Thursday, 28 May 2009

Jamie Reed MP talks about modernising the House of Commons after the expenses scandal

Jamie Reed

D ESPITE the recent revelations regarding MPs’ allowances, many MPs inside the Westminster village are convinced that this scandal will “blow over”. These people, on all sides of the house, believe that such attacks upon Parliament, its customs and practices, come and go; that occasional flares of indignation from the public are part of the political cycle and that if all MPs would only dig in then this storm will pass and that it will soon be time for business as usual.
They could not be more wrong.
Politics is changing before our eyes and the machinery of British politics must change with it if it is serious about retaining its legitimacy.
The fact that so many Members of our representative chamber are so unresponsive to the feelings and attitudes of the wider public is telling. This attitude of defiance among many MPs – like the existence of the allowances system itself – is a symptom of a political culture which is a closed shop, at times a secret society, but most of all a Victorian era gentleman’s club.

Shutting out the Public
THE cultures and practices of Westminster are designed to shut out the very people MPs purport to represent. Inevitably, this breeds a separation and a distance from ‘ordinary’ life.
The arcane language of Parliament is not accessible to ordinary people so it’s little wonder that so many people turn away from political debate and even less of a surprise that the soundbite spin culture should fill its place.
The dress of the Speaker, the doorkeepers, the Serjeant at Arms and the rest – so quaint and interesting to the outside world – are taken very seriously inside the Palace of Westminster but they add further to the detachment in the eyes of the public.
Perhaps most of all, MPs are encouraged to possess a certain mentality of privilege and entitlement – and everything about Westminster is designed to strengthen this view. From my first day in Westminster, the doorkeepers had committed my name and constituency to memory alongside those of every other new MP. One of the many tasks of a doorkeeper is to open the door when an MP approaches and to refer to him or her as ‘sir’ or ‘madam’. This only serves to strengthen the mindset of exclusivity amongst MPs. For the record, assuming their more senior colleagues aren’t scrutinising their behaviour, I open my own doors and the doorkeepers refer to me as ‘Jamie’. Upstairs Downstairs is alive and well in Westminster. I have always seen the Palace of Westminster as a place of work; too many others see it as a place of privilege.

Unwritten Rules
MOST of the staff in Westminster – the cleaners, the security guards, the frock-coated doorkeepers – will be paid poorly by London standards, and very often not much above the minimum wage. But many MPs are not much exercised by this. A recent diktat now means that MPs can jump the lunchtime queue in Westminsters cafés and canteens. Want to use the lift? ‘Priority must be given to Members at all times’. Most employees would be turfed out by their employer for spending a large amount of the working day in the bar; not in Westminster.
The place also runs on invisible rules and conventions. As a new MP, I can sit in the chamber for six hours waiting to be called to speak. If other MPs in the chamber are older than me, or have served longer than me, they will always be called to speak before me. Such rules are never explained, they are never written down and they are never spoken of: they are only learned.
Sadly, what might seem like a series of trivial quirks quickly takes the shape of an unwritten code underpinned by values and attitudes which are alien to the outside world. Little wonder, then, that some MPs become so separated from real life: the expenses scandal illustrates the depth of this detachment.
The speed of our legislative process, from green paper to white paper, to bill committee to finally becoming an Act of Parliament, can take years. The most intensive scrutiny of any act is always right in principle; but this doesn’t mean that business should be conducted at a glacial pace. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the Kelly Committee on Standards in Public Life, established to recommend wide ranging changes to the MPs payment and allowances system. This committee is independent – it has already told the Prime Minister that it will not accelerate its work and will simply report ‘later in the year’.
First of all, this illustrates that Whitehall – the collective name for the civil service – is every bit as unresponsive as Westminster. Secondly, what other organisation, business or charity would take months to sort out the kind of problem that Parliament and the public is now presented with? In a multinational corporation, a small firm or even a corner shop, the answer to the problem would be found in weeks, not months. Again, this illustrates the dislocation of our political system. Tragically, those responsible on this occasion seem to be entirely unaware of the damage done by such lethargy.
All of the absurdities and inequities of Parliament became very clear to me within a few months of entering in 2005. (Some of the best personal advice I received during those early months was from Tony Blair. “When will I get used to how this place works?” I once asked him. “You never will. I never have,” he replied). It was clear to me then that the House of Commons needed to change, but that any attempt from a newly-elected MP acting on a lone basis (and as one of the youngest MPs) would not only end in failure but would also stymie my efforts to attract new schools, hospitals and nuclear developments to the constituency.
Sadly, the House of Commons contains plenty of people who have tried to change the system, act alone and push for change. Usually, these people have a ‘good media profile’, they are popular but almost without exception they achieve nothing on behalf of the people who sent them to Parliament to represent their interests. I chose not to repeat their mistakes.
So with public faith in politics at an all-time low, there is now an appetite for fundamental change in our political culture. This is not a time for cosy, internal party deals or for political spin to flood the airwaves – this is a distraction and actually part of our national political problem. It is actually time for a national debate about the kind of political culture we want in our country. In my view we should:

Ban MPs from holding second jobs
THE electorate has the right to expect that their interests are being pursued on a full time basis.

Restore and enforce the link MPs have with their constituencies
I TURNED down the offer to stand in other Parliamentary seats because I only ever wanted to represent the place of my birth. There is a deep disconnection in a system which allows would-be politicians who roam the country looking for somebody, anybody to adopt them as a Parliamentary candidate. This demeans politics by turning it into little more than a franchise while weakening the link between the constituency and Westminster. Its also one of the main causes of ‘flipping’.

Make MPs more representative of the people of our country
THERE is a greater percentage of millionaires in Parliament than there is in the country and women are chronically under-represented.

Hold a referendum on our voting system
WE should look seriously at proportional representation in our country, alongside constitutional changes which would limit the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament.

Act quickly to clean up party funding
ALL funding should be transparent and capped. As a bare minimum, any donation to a British political party must come from British citizens living and paying tax in Britain. Any distortion of this risks turning our entire democracy into a ‘rotten borough’.

Enshrine the Freedom of Information Act in the Constitution
THE public’s right to know has never been more important. The Daily Telegraph has largely done politics and the public a good service but without Freedom of Information none of this would have been possible. In time this will be seen as one of the most important acts in British political history.

There are many more – but this isn’t a debate which should be led by politicians it should be lead by the people. Over to you...

First published at 15:44, Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Published by http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk