HOW many MPs does it take to change a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, a second to place the order with John Lewis and a third to make the expenses claim. And even then it would probably only happen after the other 643 had squabbled over whether or not to go for the more expensive 'soft glow' option.
Cynicism comes easy this weekend following our MPs' debate on their own pay and allowances. It was an evening of drama in which the underlying emotions were avarice and self-pity, even if they only rarely dared peep over the parapet. At first – Hoora
y! – the honourable members agreed to don hairshirts and take a pay rise of just 2.25%.
But then – Boo! – they voted against the removal of their Additional Costs Allowance. So the infamous 'John Lewis List' stays and MPs can continue to claim mortgage interest and furniture for their second homes in London, so long as it doesn't come to more than £24,006 a year. (That last six quid, incidentally, would just about pay for a square metre of carpet, according to the list.) The headlines were predictably generous, condemning "grasping MPs" for keeping their "snouts in the trough" on the "gravy train". Sounds messy.
But what exactly was the "reform" package MPs turned up those snouts at on Thursday? Speaker Michael Martin's grand scheme to restore faith in our parliamentarians was a second homes allowance of 'just' £19,600... plus a new living allowance of £30 for every day in the Commons. Which would total £23,980. In other words, we were nearly the victims of a £26 stitch-up.
Sure, some items would have become unclaimable and spot checks would have been introduced. But so what? Thanks to Freedom of Information, every MP's expenses will soon be available to the public and the Press. This will do more to keep MPs honest than any tinkering by the Commons authorities.
The whole debate therefore completely missed the point. It failed to ask why we treat MPs like kids who can't be trusted not to spend all their pocket money in one shop. It may be asking too much to regard some of them as grown-ups, but it is time we started treating them as what they are: our employees.
Collectively, we decide which candidate fills the job vacancy created at a general election or when a sitting MP quits. We give them a job description as our voices in parliament. We pay their way. And we can sack them if they don't perform. But as employers we have certain duties too. Companies have to make sure staff have the support they need and should help them financially when they travel away for home. We must do the same, but with similar controls.
MPs have for too long operated as self-employed businesses. They are not: we are their bosses and the Commons is their workplace. As such, it should be dragged into the 21st century (neatly bypassing the 20th and much of the 19th). It needs proper human resources and finance departments which look after MPs' rights and keep a close eye on their performance and professionalism. And, yes, part of this includes making sure they live in comfort when in London. Last week's talk of cheap hostels or barracks for MPs was laughable on security grounds; it also regarded them as drones rather than the decision-makers they should be.
Most sensible people would accept that MPs do need second homes, and that they should be (just) big enough and adequately equipped. But what really offends is that many MPs treat them as an extra pension, selling them on for a huge profit after years of tax-payers' help. That's why they should be purchased by and owned by the state. At the very least we should have a share in the equity which reflects our investment. If on leaving office MPs want to stay, they can buy out the state's share, at market rates, in the same way a divorcing husband or wife might strike a deal. They can also buy any of the contents we paid for; if not, they should be offered to new MPs or sold on.
But let's not stop there. If MPs are our employees, based in Democracy HQ, then their constituency offices are district branches. As such, the Commons should actually employ constituency workers, not just pay for them blindly. Some may still be MPs' wives and children, but at least this way they might spend more time licking envelopes than sipping champagne in nightclubs.
And then there's that other great political earner, the donation. If we really want to tackle sleaze then the Commons should also act as a clearing house through which all party donations of any size must pass. This should stop "dodgy" donations, however small, coming from inappropriate donors. Come to think of it, Scottish Labour might want to suggest that one for Holyrood too.
None of this will come cheap. The Commons Finance and Administration Department, and particularly the Fees Office, would have to evolve into well-staffed and modern personnel and finance units. But – what? – a few million pounds? That's not too big a price to pay. Besides, I am not finished there...
Take a deep breath. Hold your nose if you wish. But it is time to pay MPs much, much more. Forget giving them pin money to buy food, run cars or get their dry cleaning done. Forget linking their pay to that of civil servants. Instead, let's cough up enough to attract better candidates than the ex-councillors who are Labour's lobby fodder and the toffs who still feature on Tory backbenches.
Should the people who decide many of the laws we live by earn more than a Scots head teacher (£70,000)? Sure. The same as a GP (£90,000)? Absolutely. As much as the electrician who will come to fix the light if that new bulb doesn't work? Well, let's not get carried away.
