Westminster is a disappointment to those on the inside as well as the public
|
Version 0 of 1. It may seem remarkable today, but there was a time when MPs were so poorly paid they actually opened their own letters. There were advantages: it gave them something else to do in the evenings, apart from hanging around in bars, and it was a good way of filling time if the whips had obliged them to sit in the chamber until the wind-up speeches in the small hours. Sir George Young, who recently stood down as chief whip, always did his post in such a fashion when only a whippersnapper, and once opened a missive from an outraged constituent demanding that he telephoned in person the very moment he read the contents. His correspondent was quite surprised to get a call at midnight. In days gone by, some MPs were less assiduous in dealing with their constituency post. Lynda Chalker, the former Tory MP who now sits in the Lords, took over from the late Ernest Marples in the general election 41 years ago, and discovered that he had devised a novel means of handling the matter of communication with his voters. He pre-printed postcards that read: “Thank you for your letter. I am afraid this is not a matter for me and I suggest you seek the help of your local councillor.” By such means did he free himself from the pesky problems of the poor benighted electorate and spend his working hours in some manner no doubt more agreeable to his personal preference. The first scandal broke in the 70s – a newspaper suggesting not all those with second jobs were behaving with propriety In those long gone days it was accepted practice that as parliament did not even sit until 2.30pm there was nothing to stop an MP earning a second income by any means available – at the bar or in the boardroom – while turning up at Westminster to do justice to democracy in the afternoons. But it was in the 1970s that the first scandal broke when an MP called Joe Ashton wrote a newspaper column suggesting that not all those who had second jobs were behaving with propriety. His article was headed “MPs for hire.” All that was meant to be in the past. But making a radio programme about the changes there have been at Westminster since I first worked there in the early 1970s, I have discovered that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the way the place now works. Talking to a cross-section of people who have all worked at Westminster throughout this period, I expected a degree of retrospective sentiment for the old days. Many spoke affectionately of the camaraderie of sharing poky offices, of doing business in smoky bars, of dining and drinking in the dozens of different locations one could choose of an evening around the palace, and the now long-forgotten pleasures of the two-bottle political lunch. Far more remarkable was the almost unanimity of criticism for the changes in the working practices of the Houses of Parliament and of the social makeup of the modern House of Commons. The modernisation of parliament that has been introduced over the past few decades has been consistently heralded as a means to give us the governance the country deserves: an efficient, professional institution fit for the 21st century operating in normal business hours – so that membership is accessible to anyone – and giving us the benefits of a fully functioning full-time legislature. But it hasn’t worked like that. Parliament is less representative than it once was – the horny-handed sons of toil and the knights of the shires of historic cliche have all long gone, to be replaced by university-educated former political advisers with almost indistinguishable views whatever their party. The changes in hours that was meant to bring more women into the chamber has merely led to a tiny proportionate increase, and instead of a busy bustling parliament the corridors echo with emptiness in the evening. The introduction of timetabling has meant that legislation is insufficiently scrutinised. The five-year fixed-term parliament has been a disaster for the political timetable. The coming election has determined the government’s programme for at least the past year. That may have been the case beforehand when elections had to be held within five years of the last, but at least the prime minister still had the power to call a snap election. Now, because the election date is known there has been next to no legislation of any consequence for months. The former speaker Betty Boothroyd is particularly incandescent about all of this. The fixed-term parliament has been a disaster … there has been next to no legislation of any consequence for months And now here we are, four decades on from “MPs for hire”, with Westminster transfixed once again this week by yet another cash for access sting. It is indisputable that successive governments since the 1970s have failed to address the issue of paying MPs a wage that is commensurate with the work they do and comparative to some arguable equivalent job. I think it is absurd that this question has not been resolved. It is caused by political cowardice. The fear is that in these days of austerity the public will not wear increasing the parliamentary salary of £67,060 (expenses in addition) – a handsome enough figure compared with the national average wage when politicians are in any case currently viewed with such disdain. But the point is that MPs have to be paid to be full-time, and if their pay was increased it might be feasible to impose some sort of prohibition on them accepting second jobs. I do not think it is possible to legislate against greed or vanity, but how can it be that Malcolm Rifkind, or any MP, can boast that he or she has plenty of spare time? Rifkind previously earned an additional £14,876 on top of his parliamentary pay as chairman of the intelligence and security committee until his enforced resignation this week, but then perhaps that does seem relatively insignificant if Jack Straw’s going rate is £5,000 for a day. It was, as it happens, Straw who set up Ipsa, the independent standards body established in the wake of the expenses scandal, when he was leader of the house in 2009. He remains strongly critical, in the interview he gave me some weeks ago, of the three political party leaders apparently seeking to renege on the commitment to accept Ipsa’s latest recommendations to pay MPs a salary equivalent to that of the head of a smallish school. The outcome, he said, was that there would be pressure once again to increase allowances and parliament would be “back to where we started”. He meant facing another scandal, and it turns out he was right. • Julia, Dear Boy … Welcome to Westminster is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 10.30am on Saturday 28 February |