Politicians: a Class Apart or Servants of the People?
Peter Oborne opened the debate by declaring that while he believes in Parliament, he also believes that there was something ‘horribly systemically wrong' with the way it operates. He described a ‘structural corruption' at the heart of Parliament and gave some examples. He felt that politicians operated as a ‘corrupt cadre' and brought politics into disrepute.
Austin Mitchell commented that a few examples of wrong-doing do not mean that politicians are fundamentally corrupt. He said that politicians are not a class or an elite, rather a mixed body of people motivated by duty not by a desire for expenses. He agreed that some things have gone wrong and gave the example of Housing Allowances. He did agree that politicians are viewed with distrust and hostility and felt that the reason why was because the many and varied wants of the public can't all be fulfilled. He spoke of a sense of duty and the feeling that MPs were struggling to keep their heads above water with a rising tide of work.
Norman Baker declared that his opinion was somewhere between Peter and Austin's. He agreed that Parliament isn't working as it should be and that ‘we haven't changed as the world around us changes'. He felt that while the system doesn't allow for sensible operation, MPs were ordinary people with the same attributes and faults as other people. He said that safeguards must apply - a clear set of rules, openness and accountability were needed when public money was at stake. He gave the example of his two-year battle to get a Freedom of Information request answered on MPs' travel expenses and said that ‘we need to reform our allowances'.
Andrew Tyrie urged the meeting to move beyond discussing MPs' allowances. He said that he didn't recognise Peter's description of ‘structural corruption' and declared that there never was a ‘golden age' of independence. There has been a ‘professionalisation' of MPs and that the quality of Parliament today is higher and politics is cleaner. We now have a higher percentage of dedicated politicians compared to the ‘dilettantes' who existed in the 19th century and in the 1930s. He agreed that reforms need to be made and defined the problem as ‘the legacy of a 19th century club trying to hold a democracy to account in the 21st century'. Modernisation is the key, combined with effective scrutiny, cleaning up the issues of pay, allowances, pensions etc plus one further reform - to create a form of democratic debate here which the public are prepared to listen to and engage with'.
Questions from the floor covered issues such as state funding of political parties, centralisation of MPs' staff, the power of the Whips system and membership of select committees.