Politicians’ expenses is an issue that refuses to go away and will hit the headlines again later today when the much awaited report by the Independent Review Panel chaired by Sir Roger Jones is published. AM’s and political parties in Wales are certainly anxious about it and it will be interesting to hear their reaction. The recommendations, if accepted, could be quite radical and could also have significant financial repercussions for some individual AM’s and also every single one of the main political parties.
For once, the recommendations haven’t been leaked in advance but it would be surprising if the panel hadn’t looked into AM’s pay, second home allowance, employment of relatives, food allowance and paying office rent to political parties. Given that the panel started their work ten months ago, it will also be interesting to see if the media’s obsession over the past two months with expenses has shaped the findings in anyway.
Whilst reform of the system, completely transparency and clarity is undoubtedly needed, I hope any changes will be well thought out before they are implemented. Reactive policies may well be popular in the short term, but they are not always the best ones. The media have vilified every single politician whose ever claimed any type of expense over the past few months, and that is grossly unfair on those who have only claimed legitimately. Yes, it is important that those who cheated the system have been found out and are now accountable for their actions but I’m angry that the impression has now been given to the electorate that all of them are corrupt. It’s been incredibly damaging, and it will take a great deal of time for people to start trusting their politicians again.
Personally, I’m also worried that the damage done to politics by the expenses scandal will also put off a number of good people from going into politics in the future. I’d also hate to see us return to a situation when it’s only people who are already wealthy that can ever contemplate running for a political position. It will be incredibly damaging to democracy if the reform isn’t done properly.
John 6:13 pm on 6 July, 2009 Permalink
AMs having to give up their second homes.
Wow! If that had been suggested six months ago they would never have agreed to it…
Lee Waters 7:59 pm on 6 July, 2009 Permalink
I don’t see why MPs should be paid more than AMs. Its stems from a very patronising view taken by the Senior Salary Review Board prior to the 1999 elections that the Assembly was an inferior institution.
I was talking to one AM today who made the fair point that each individual proposed reform can be taken on its merits, but the culminative impact is to penalise those who wish to stand for the Assembly.
In this climate it would be impossible to reject Roger Jones’ report, but I’m unconvinced that this is the best way to make reforms. After all why should this panel get carte blanche?
We’ll see what comes out of Westminster but today’s events could end up with the prospect of becoming an AM being much less attractive than standing for Parliament, and I’m not sure whose long term interest that serves.
John 8:11 pm on 6 July, 2009 Permalink
could end up with the prospect of becoming an AM being much less attractive than standing for Parliament
If they’re in it for the money, they’re in it for the wrong reasons anyway.
MH 10:03 pm on 6 July, 2009 Permalink
Lee, one of the things I’m happiest about in the report is breaking the link between the pay of AMs and MPs. I agree that valuing an AMs work as a percentage of an MPs work was patronizing, probably deliberately so, but I don’t share the conclusion in your last paragraph. In fact I think the opposite is more likely to be true in the longer term.
Prior to 1999, both Wales and Scotland had a greater number of MPs per head of population than England. Because Holyrood had primary lawmaking powers and a larger degree of devolution, the number of Scottish MPs was cut from 72 to 59 in the 2005 election to broadly match the situation in England. (Note that Scotland still has more MPs than a strict pro-rata, but that is only because less densly populated constituences tend to have fewer voters than urban constituencies, so that they don’t become geographically unwieldy. That applies to remote areas of England too.)
The number of Welsh MPs wasn’t cut. But it seems almost certain that the number of Welsh MPs will be cut if the Senedd gets primary lawmaking powers.
When that has happened, the logic of the situation suggests that Welsh MPs should be paid less than English MPs simply because a Welsh MP will not have to deal with health, education and other devolved issues. It wouldn’t be possible to reduce the number of Welsh MPs further (unless there was a general reduction in the number of MPs) because that would mean that Wales and Scotland would have less of a voice on UK and international issues.
So in all probability being an AM will not only become a more responsible job than being a Welsh MP, but it might well carry a salary that reflects that difference.
Angela EL 6:05 pm on 7 July, 2009 Permalink
I now think debate should stop and some action get under way. Equal pay for equal work and some AMs work as hard if not harder than MPs.
Some are not worth what they are getting paid. In the world I inhabit , there are targets and outputs etc. that have to be achieved,why isn’t this the case with politicians.
There are measurement that can be applied, so give them a basic salary , sensible expenses that cover necessary out of pocket costs; and then put them on a bonus system. So the harder or may be the more effectively they work the more they are rewarded.
May be some one should analyse the numbers of AMs who are just on the basic salary, between ministers , deputy ministers, committee chairs, opposition leaders and special jobs few are on the basic.
Then we also have AMs with second incomes, we have a few farmers, a few doctors , we have some who do some law practise, some lecturing and some media work.
So it needs to be seen in the round.