What kind of new regulator for MP expenses

G.Brown, when he recognised that the system of MP's expenses could no longer be concealed from voter scrutiny, allowed the Speaker to be removed for having failed to monitor the system satisfactorily, among other things.

There would presumably have been nothing to offend his presbyterian conscience if the whole system continued to be concealed. The Daily Telegraph, early on condemned for using cheque-book journalism to obtain the the grisly leaked details, was eventually praised when it published enough for actions to be utterly unacceptable and an offence against his conscience.

He has overacted in response. As MPs are apparently unable to act with his presbyterian rectitude, there must be some outside independent investigatory and penal agency to make sure that further offending does not occur.

There is here a huge implicit criticism of the Fees Office, who gave in to some unethical demands by powerful MPs and encouraged them other directions. Their failure, if any, was to try to operate a system inadequately defined and not properly reviewed when so many abused it. In actual fact, many of the expenditures featured by the Telegraph were applications rejected or toned down, - £4000 TVs for instance, or had to be allowed because freedom was given to MPs to choose which residence to designate as the first home.

Who will choose the Regulator and his team? Will the whips arrange for some government sympathetic and cooperative person to be appointed, and what arrangements can be put in place to make sure that the regulated do not "capture" the regulator, as happens in many cases? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Will the Regulator be subject to the FOI Act? Will investigators be allowed to pursue enquiries into suspected abuses, or will all information disappear into a black box with eventual summary justice? Will MPs be permitted to challenge what they think is wrong, and if so, how?

The regulator will be effectively a quango. To whom will it be accountable, - to the government, parliament, voters who pay for the expenses? We have been too long in a system of secrecy and suspicion of abuse covered up by MPs or their representatives. The court of public opinion is not going to look favourably on a system operated by MPs, after recent experience.

The anger felt by many people is not just the abuses, but also the lengths gone to to perpetuate their concealment.

The best regulator of all, and the cheapest by far, is openness, is revelation of practices which do not apparently conform to the details of any scheme. Some voters have tasted blood, and others would discipline their MP if details are published in full or are capable of being investigated by researchers. Transparency in the use of taxpayers money must be essential.