Plenty of reports around last week that there could be a ban on MPs taking extra jobs outside the House of Commons.

Supposedly, Gordon Brown is looking at either a total ban, a limit on outside remuneration or a restriction to only media work.  

Two-thirds of Tories, 37 per cent of Lib Dems and 19 per cent of Labour MPs top up their £61k salaries with other jobs. This can be controversial, particularly when former ministers go on to well-remunerated directorships.

But is the reported crackdown going to happen? Last week’s flurry of interest came after it emerged that Helen Goodman, deputy leader of the Commons, had written a confidential paper looking at these options.

Alas, my understanding is that the prime minister has totally ruled out any action on the report, which is now….three months old.  

I had to stifle a groan when listening to BBC radio just now. Its grave tones said that - in the wake of Thursday’s vote - there would probably be a new inquiry into MPs expenses. It’s by the committee on standards in public life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. The review would strike terror into the hearts of MPs (I paraphrase).

The only problem is; so what? As one person close to the committe admits, it could come up with a highly critical report, but then what? The MPs who voted down the members’ estimate committe (MEC) are not going to vote for any other major change.  Oblivious to the public mood, their heads are buried deep in the sand.

Labour are to blame (see my prior post from today).

Incidentally, the MEC are regrouping in a few days’ time to reconsider their next step. I don’t envy their dilemna.

The recommendations for reform of MPs’ expenses were hardly radical. They would have kept their circa £23,000 of expenses for a second home in London - and won greater public respect - in return for taking a few blows such as tougher auditing, a halving of the allowance for those in greater London and the end of free furniture and new kitchens.

For a majority to reject the proposals yesterday was the equivalent of a giant V-sign at the media and - much more importantly - the voters.

Much has already been made of the fact that 33 ministers voted against reform. (Including Caroline Flint, Andy Burnham, Jacqui Smith, Paul Murphy and Shaun Woodward). While the Tory frontbench, and all Liberal Democrats, supported change.

An equally fascinating fact is how many cabinet ministers stayed away in the knowledge that the proposals were doomed.

Take a bow: Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, James Purnell, Alan Johnson, Ed Balls, Hazel Blears, David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Hoon, Hilary Benn, Ruth Kelly and John Hutton. So much for setting an example.

In fact, the only cabinet members who supported the measures (designed to save the reputation of the House of Commons, bear in mind - the words of Nick Harvey MP, not mine) were these seven: Ed Balls, James Purnell, Des Browne, Yvette Cooper, John Denham, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman.

The prime minister today professed disappointment that the move towards greater austerity had been defeated. Come off it.

UPDATE:

Sorry, Des Browne supported reform. I forgot he was still in the cabinet. James Purnell and Ed Balls did as well. Apologies.

July 3 is the day when MPs will (perhaps reluctantly) back the new expenses regime (see my last blog).

They also get a choice on pay. Do they accept or reject the recent recommendations by Sir John Baker which amount to an inflation-busting 4.5 per cent pay rise?

Sir John has suggested £650 a year for three years to catch up with past pay-lag. He also wants MPs’ pay to be based on the public sector average earnings index. (Bear with me here).

But the government wants pay to be set at a lower index based on civil service median pay, something like 2.5 per cent.

Sir John suggested his index, which is higher (currently 3.5 per cent) to take into account the lack of any career path or promotion for most MPs. Which seems fair.

The only problem is, with hairshirt public sector pay restraint the order of the day, who will agree with him?

Possibly quite a few MPs, one tells me. He has been waiting to see the orders, which have not been forthcoming. For now no one knows what they will be voting on.

Until the government comes up with a new formula (it’s not good enough to talk vaguely about some new one based on civil service pay) this could be a tricky issue.

“MPs are very much in mind to vote against the government given that the Baker proposal is the only one that works,” he says. 

Shock, horror.

Michael Martin’s committee of MPs has done the unexpected and come up with a new system of expenses for the Commons.

It is a genuine overhaul.  The sums in question remain the same; up to £24,000.

But:

1] The John Lewis list is dead (MPs will no longer be able to claim for furniture and repairs).

2] MPS in outer London will see their expense allowances halved.

3] There will be more forensic oversight of expenses, all of which - not just from £25 upwards (or £250 until recently) - will have to be declared.

There will still be criticisms.

Here they are: Ministers with grace and favour homes can still claim the allowance for a second home. Central London MPs have had a pay rise of £7,000 recommended. There will be no clocking in and out for MPs. The rules governing husband and wife MPs - both claiming on the same second home - remain up in the air. MPs can still use the allowance to pay mortgage interest instead of rent. Employment of relatives will not change.

Even so: It’s a big change, and should be applauded as - at the very least - a step in the right direction. MPs will vote on the package on July 3.

 ps: The committee did look at combining salaries with expenses (which would look like a pay rise of up to £40,000) but rejected it; contrary to the splash in one Sunday newspaper at the weekend.

My favourite line from today’s report - “Conduct of Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton” - lies in the appendices. It is a letter to the standards commissioner from Lady W on April 28, 2008:

….”My husband and I have already commenced looking for an alternative property with similar facilities in the Westminster area. As I am currently chairing the Local Transport Bill Public Bill Committee and Nicholas is the lead Chairman on the Finance Bill Public Bill Committee and, in addition, we shall be attending the inauguration of the new Taiwanese President in Taipei in May, I am sure you can appreciate the limits on our time….”

( Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton were found to have broken expenses rules by claiming rent on a flat they already owned. The Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges accepted that the breach regarding the £700,000 London property was accidental. But they ordered the couple to cease their unusual arrangement from September onwards. The Wintertons claimed more than £120,000 in Commons expenses for their second home, six years after they paid off their mortgage. They did this by moving the building into a family trust, set up for their two children. This allowed them to claim more than £21,600 a year in “rent” on the building and also avoid inheritance tax in the event of their death. )

Gordon Brown announced today that no ministers would take a pay rise this year. Pour encourager les autres, etc, etc.

The government has also rejected Sir John Baker’s recommendation of a 4.6 per cent pay rise for all MPs this year. They will get to vote on this on July 3.

How will the vote go? The Tories are urging all their rank and file to reject the rise, which is far above inflation and sends out all the wrong signals to public sector workers.

Labour is likely to whip its payroll (about 140 ministers etc) and use a “one-line whip” on everyone else.

Given the public mood about a] the economy and b] “fat-cat MPs” I’d be amazed if the 4.6 per cent rise sees the light of day.

 Incidentally…

Sir John raised the prospect of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs being paid less than their English counterparts - because of devolution.

“All MPs are paid exactly the same and it is a deep article of faith of MPs that that should be the case,” he said. “I have always taken the view that as and when we see a complete package of constitutional reform, looking at the House of Lords as well, I think that question will come back on the table and will need addressing then.”