Most of us accept Parliament needs radical change, but what happens when you put people who have never had real jobs in charge of sorting out their own mess? You get an even bigger one.
As any HR person will tell you, the answer to Parliament's woes lies in the principles of effective management that are applied by most businesses: a standard contract of employment; simple and transparent remuneration; clear standards and consequences for breaching them; controls to ensure no one gains from any work-related requirements; and a strong structure of non-executive governance and audit.
The system of allowances turns MPs from employees into sole traders: they rent office premises, employ their own staff, and make the purchase of any second property required for carrying out their jobs; and while some have shown the sole trader's ability to make a killing, many more just look like Del Boy.
Most MPs have no experience or expertise in managing anything more than their home finances, so why do we expect them to be able to run their own operations? We the people should employ our representatives to represent us, not to run small businesses.
They need a standard contract of employment that provides an office in London and one in the constituency with the same staff complement for every MP, employed by Parliament to support parliamentary activity, not party political work. They should be seen as public servants, upholding the values of independent democracy. These offices should have a standard operating budget that should be set annually. The only expenses therefore would be travel and any costs incurred while acting as an MP - paid against a clear policy just as in any modern organisation today. This contract should lay out a code of conduct with clear consequences for non-compliance.
Just as modern organisations define precisely what employees can and cannot do they also control the costs and structures associated with delivering their products and services and so should Parliament: this should include second homes.
The key to resolving the second home issue is to take MPs out of the property market all together and make the state the landlord. In the Crown Estates we have a potential landlord who can own property in London and in constituencies and who can take responsibility for a standard fit-out and routine maintenance. If an MP doesn't want or need to take advantage of the job-related accommodation, they can choose not to - at their own expense.
We also need to address the management of the parliamentary authorities. The Fees Office has much to answer for - it is clear it encouraged MPs to claim to the maximum of their entitlement without any thought for the reputation of the institution. We should replace it with a strong non-executive body - possibly based on an expanded parliamentary commissioners office appointed through the public appointments process - that should run salaries, assets, expenses and maintain adherence to the code of conduct. It will need to be accountable to the taxpayer but, most importantly, must report annually to the public on all aspects of our representatives' performance.
One final thought: an initial study suggests a link between the degree of excess and the level of 'safety' in a seat. When the electoral system can ensure you are in a job for life, your behaviour rapidly reflects that assumption. A proportional system, with more accountability at the ballot box and less certainty of re-election, would work wonders for MPs' attitudes to voters. Couple this with the right for constituents to call by-elections and having fewer MPs and we'll start the sort of radical change that can restore our confidence in the mother of parliaments.
