MORTGAGE interest and rent claims will be capped at £1,250 a month under interim reforms to MPs’ expenses, Speaker Michael Martin announced.
He said all parties had agreed on an immediate ban on second homes claims for furniture, cleaning and stamp duty.
And MPs will not be allowed to ‘flip’ the designation of their second home during 2009/10.
The statement came after Mr Martin became the first Commons Speaker forced out of office for more than 300 years as the expenses scandal claimed its biggest scalp yet.
In a brief but dramatic statement, Mr Martin said he would be standing down next month to preserve ‘unity’ after a near-mutiny by MPs from all parties.
Pledge
Within hours, Gordon Brown was pledging to end the Parliamentary ‘gentlemen’s club’ by bringing in external regulators.
Mr Martin had told the Commons that a ‘fundamental reform’ of allowances would result in the system shifting from self-regulation to regulation by an independent body.
He said all parties were committed to accepting the recommendations from Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life.
‘We have agreed a robust set of interim measures which will take effect at once and do not pre-empt any more substantial changes to be put forward by the Kelly Committee,” he said.
Mr Brown said he believed the keystone of any reform had to be the switch from self-regulation.
“Westminster cannot operate like some gentlemen’s club, where the members make up the rules and operate them among themselves,” he said.
“If MPs continue to set their own codes and rules, the public will always question the transparency and standards they rightly demand.”
Abuses
Mr Brown said ‘comprehensive measures’ would be taken to reassure the public that all the ‘abuses and misjudgements’ of the past would be corrected and dealt with.
MPs would no longer set their own pay, but the Senior Salaries Review Body would, said Mr Brown.
“These are big changes, they change centuries of history for Parliament, but to move from self-regulation to statutory independent regulation is in my view the only way forward now,” he said.
“The biggest task we have is to restore the public’s support and trust in our political system as a whole.”
He said the functioning of Parliament needed to be looked at ‘much more deeply’, so
the public could have trust and pride in it.
He urged MPs to get out into their constituencies during next week’s Whitsun recess and ‘hold themselves to account’.
'Radical surgery'
Mr Brown also said the changes would apply to the Lords as well as the Commons. While ‘radical surgery’ was under way to reform the system, he stressed MPs had to take personal responsibility for their own failings.
“A few MPs have made terrible mistakes and they will pay a very heavy price for this because transparency is the means by which all these things are known,” he said.
Mr Brown said the Speaker had shown he was behind the necessary reforms and added: “I think that on reflection, people will want to thank the Speaker for what he’s done.”
Tory leader David Cameron said of Mr Martin’s decision: “I think it was, in the end, the right thing for him to do because obviously he’d lost the confidence of the Commons.
“But what we need is not just a new Speaker, we need a new Parliament, we need people to have the chance in a general election to pass judgment on their politicians.”
But Mr Brown dismissed calls for an immediate election so voters could punish wrongdoers, insisting it would not help because all parties had been tainted.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg welcomed the changes agreed by the party leaders at their meeting.
Judgement
“The days of MPs being judge and jury of their own pay, judge and jury of their own expenses, are over,” he said.
Mr Martin stood up in the House to deliver a resignation statement which lasted little more than 30 seconds.
“Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united,” he said.
“In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday June 21.
This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday June 22.
“That is all I have to say on this matter.”
A by-election is expected in Mr Martin’s Glasgow North East constituency next month and Labour will be braced for a tough fight to hold the traditionally safe seat. By custom, Mr Martin would then be given a peerage.
He will walk away with the ultra gold-plated pension given to all former Speakers, equivalent to £39,000 a year index-linked, on top of his MP’s pension.
However, he will miss out on an allowance of up to £65,000 that is handed to members who depart or are defeated at a general election.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 09:44)
Steve (20/05/2009 at 09:59)
if I got that in a month I wouldn’t have a mortgage. This whole situation does nothing less than prove how much our elected leaders have been ripping off the public purse and for so long. How can someone claim £13,000 in interest on a non-existent mortgage or tell the tax office one thing and the expenses committee another without being prosecuted for a criminal offence? To quote Mr Brown
“A few MPs have made terrible mistakes and they will pay a very heavy price for this because transparency is the means by which all these things are known,”
Does that mean they will have to answer to the courts like the rest of us would having made such outrageous claims? I doubt it!
And Mr brown won’t let anybody ‘flip’ there second home during 2009/10. Just enough time for this fiasco to get buried and forgotten about so they can start claiming all over again.
I won’t be voting for any of the major parties come the election as I have a thing about blatant dishonesty.
Theowolfe (20/05/2009 at 11:07)
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 11:47)
In part, yes. I don't agree with the supremacy of parliament; I believe that the individual is sovereign and parliament should only be able to operate within limits which recognise that.
However, my initial point was that, as the role of the government is to create laws based on what is right and wrong, if there are MPs who are incapable of determining what is right and wrong without rules to direct them, they clearly aren't fit to do the job. Giving the job of controlling them to an outside body is just a sticking plaster.
Jomov (20/05/2009 at 12:27)
If I had a say I would totally scrap anything to do with paying for these mortgages, the interest alone (which they claim for) is probably more than what most of us earn!!!
Any rules that are made should be made by people who are totally independent and will NOT benefit by the decisions being made in any way shape of form.
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 13:52)
On one hand, it sounds reasonable, but take it to its logical conclusion and you'd scrap democracy altogether within the UK and have all decisions made by somebody in a foreign country who isn't going to have a vested interest in the outcome.
Jomov (20/05/2009 at 14:21)
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 14:39)
Do you view that as a positive situation?
zarquon, bramhall (20/05/2009 at 15:04)
Jomov (20/05/2009 at 15:19)
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 15:53)
Given a choice between MPs being responsible for determining their own remuneration and being accountable to the electorate for it, or having an unelected, unanswerable body determining what MPs are worth, I think the former is the lesser of two evils, although both have pros and cons.
From my perspective, the major problem is a lack of transparency. I wouldn't be so concerned about MPs having a relatively free hand in their expenses if they had to file them all online so that the electorate could inspect them.
Jomov (20/05/2009 at 16:19)
Black Flag (20/05/2009 at 16:48)
However, I think the way to achieve that is to vote for a party which commits to do it. Setting up a quango to force the situation on them seems to me to be making the mess even worse than it is.
Andanotherthing, Mcr (20/05/2009 at 17:00)
Theowolfe (20/05/2009 at 17:37)
Absoluetly correct, but the electorate voted for Nu-Labour following the war. So we have to assume that the people that voted for Nu-Labour, despite their protstations, agreed with the war of aggression.
So yes "the people of the United Kingdom deserve the government it gets."
Jomov (20/05/2009 at 19:03)
Amounderness Lad, Caithness (21/05/2009 at 02:53)
In the last ten years, whilst he was first Chancellor and then Prime Minister, the maximum allowances MPs could claim rose from just 6,000 pounds a year to twenty-four thousand pounds. Both he and Blair were complicit in that massive increase and could have ensured it did not happen. During that time there has been nothing to warranjt that kind of fourfold increase other than to encourage and facilitate pure greed.
If the Commons was a “gentleman’s club” during that time then he spent time either as treasurer and then chairman. Trying to wash his filthy hands and indicate that all the blame lay elsewhere is complete rubbish. He presided over it and must accept most of the blame.
As a matter of interest, have any of the readers here had a four fold increase in their pay handed out for no particular reason?
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (21/05/2009 at 11:31)
Jim McCullough, Manchester (21/05/2009 at 14:44)
After all it was there watch!!
All the ones who have shuffled there paper work to hide certain facts for the last four years might not find ten years so easy to do!