Stop the slide towards a two-tier Parliament

Irrespective of what MPs say and do, the media narrative seems pre-determined: the House of Commons is packed with self-serving charlatans motivated only by a selfish desire to extract more money from the taxpayer for personal financial gain.

It is little wonder that public confidence in our elected representatives remains so low. In such a hostile climate, it is understandable that many MPs are reluctant to correct the storyline for fear of media reprisals. Yet our parliamentary democracy must be defended.

MPs sit at the heart of our democratic system. They are directly elected by their constituents to scrutinise and pass legislation and hold the government of the day to account. MPs are the voice of the people. They guard against the abuse of power and the excesses of the Executive. Anything that challenges MPs’ ability to perform these vital democratic functions must be identified and confronted.

Parliament is not simply a collective of MPs. It is our protector against a return to a feudal-like system controlled by an established wealthy elite. It gives each of us a voice in how our country is governed. It safeguards us from tyranny. It has shielded us from the instability of bloody revolution experienced by so many other nations. So precious is our democracy that millions of our relatives and forebears have shed blood on foreign soil to defend it.

In my experience the vast majority of MPs are motivated by a passionate drive to make a positive difference to people’s lives. That motivation is slowly but surely being sapped by the actions of the board of an unelected quango: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), the body which determines, regulates and administers payments to MPs.

In the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal, Parliament was right to introduce the independent regulation and determination of payments to MPs to guard against future abuse and restore public confidence in the expenses system.

Yet the costly and unnecessarily bureaucratic system introduced by the board of Ipsa is a danger to our democracy. Not only does it cost the taxpayer about £9m to regulate and administer just £19.5m of expenses, it is also undermining the effective functioning of Parliament.

MPs without independent means, and those with young families, have been placed at an even greater disadvantage with Ipsa’s choice of scheme. A survey conducted by my select committee makes stark reading: 85 per cent of MPs say the time taken to submit claims to Ipsa is such a burden that it hinders them from doing their work; and 93 per cent are subsidising their work from their own pockets (often in excess of £20,000 a year) to save time and protect their reputations from Ipsa’s misleading bi-monthly publications.

MPs are finding their time, energy and resources drained away in attending to hours of data entry and unnecessary bureaucracy. This is more than a mere inconvenience for MPs. The real victims are constituents, the taxpayer and democracy. The time taken from MPs and their staff is time that should be spent working for constituents and fulfilling the obligations of Parliament.

The consequence of Ipsa’s actions is dramatic: a two-tier Parliament dominated by a wealthy elite is becoming a reality. While MPs with private means – inherited assets, trust funds, income from investments – can afford to escape Ipsa’s grasp by subsidising the costs of their work from their own pockets, those without the cash cannot.

Some would argue that MPs are volunteers who should stop ‘whingeing’ about their plight because they deserve it. But that is to ignore the fact that only a handful of MPs were guilty of expenses malpractice before 2010 and the majority have been elected since. Surely we do not want to erect unnecessary financial hurdles that dissuade those from less affluent backgrounds from standing for Parliament or remaining within it. Parliament must to some degree reflect the diversity of the country as a whole.

Perhaps those of us who come from less affluent backgrounds and lower socio-economic groups are more conscious of the uneven playing field created by Ipsa. In an era when MPs’ outside earnings are frowned upon, the patronage of political party leaders who can offer a salaried frontbench job is ever more powerful.

In light of the 2009 expenses furore, some have questioned why anyone would wish to take up the cause of MPs and Parliament. But democracy is a cause worth fighting for. For my part I could not remain silent and allow our Parliament to once again fall captive to a small and privileged class. That is why I have lobbied relentlessly in both public and private, introduced a bill to cut the cost of MPs to the taxpayer, and led the delivery of a set of moderate and pragmatic recommendations from a select committee. The committee’s proposals are not about making MPs’ lives easier, nor squeezing more money from the public purse. They are about reducing the costs of Parliament and making democracy work in a more efficient and cost-effective way for constituents and taxpayers.

Yet despite my best efforts with the support of many enlightened colleagues, I am deeply saddened that the situation is unlikely to change for some time. I am unsure how long the motivation of MPs, particularly the 2010 intake, can withstand the unnecessary and incessant financial burdens of Ipsa when they realise the situation is unlikely to change soon.

It is possible that my committee’s common-sense recommendations might one day be endorsed and implemented by Parliament and Ipsa. I only hope that day arrives before we slide irrevocably towards a two-tier Parliament monopolised by a wealthy minority with independent means.

First published in the House Magazine

Adam Afriyie