MPs should no longer have the right to set their own pay and allowances says Pendle MP, Gordon Prentice.

Speaking from Westminster tonight, the MP said: "I want the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life to pull out all the stops and report by the end of July on a completely new system which does not involve MPs in any way shape or form."

The MP added: "I also believe it is time for the Speaker of the House of Commons to retire." 

Note to Editors: Below is my speech on Members Allowances in the debate on 30 April - before the disclosures in the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Most of us here get just over £64,000, and I do not complain about it because that is a king’s ransom for people in Pendle. The Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a point about Kelly, but he does not come from the planet Pluto. He will take evidence—the evidence sessions will be held in public—so to ensure that there are no misunderstandings, it will be open to Members to make submissions, and no doubt she will do so.

It is a colossal mistake that we are having the debate at all, and an even bigger mistake to be having any votes. The whole shooting match should be handed over to Kelly. The YouTube was almost too horrible to watch—it was terrible. I was flinching as I watched the performance, and it became obvious that the proposals had not been thought through for one moment.

The Prime Minister’s decision was announced to the nation in that way only about 16 hours after a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, at which we could have been taken into his confidence and said to him, “The daily allowance, Gordon, will not work.” All Members then suffered the indignity of hearing an official spokesperson for No. 10 saying about the per diem proposal, to which the Prime Minister was so wedded until recently:

“One of the advantages of the daily allowance is that it does provide them”—

that is us—

“with an incentive to attend”

Parliament. That is disgraceful. I find it offensive that some unnamed source in No. 10 says that we need to be paid a daily allowance to turn up here and do our job.

Christopher Kelly has said—and I agree—that the whole parliamentary expenses issue has been

“the single most damaging issue for public trust in politicians”

in the past 15 years. Who could disagree with that? Colleagues have sheltered behind rules; they said that they had not broken any rules when those rules offended against common sense. People were saying, “We’re not going to think the better of you because you obeyed these perverse rules.” The rules need to be rewritten—a point made by my friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

Sir Christopher Kelly said of parliamentary expenses:

“This is not something that should be left to politicians to sort out for themselves.”

When, on 10 February this year, he came before the Public Administration Committee, which my friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) chairs, he asked:

“should Members of Parliament have the right to set their own pay and allowances...the answer is clearly, no.”

We will get out of this mess only if we hand everything over to an independent body, even though some of the recommendations may be uncomfortable. Perhaps there are people who say, “This Parliament is sovereign, so we cannot delegate these decisions to an independent body.” I say that they are wrong. I want pay and allowances to be like a devolved matter. When I go to the Table Office and want to table a question about some arcane thing that is happening in Scotland, the Clerk will say, “I am sorry, Mr. Prentice, you cannot table that because it’s a devolved matter.” Pay and allowances for Members of Parliament should be a devolved matter, and we should have nothing to do with it.

I come to my final point. I have heard a lot of really good speeches today, including from my friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), my friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who spoke just a moment ago, and of course my friend the Member for Cannock Chase. The system will just turn to dust yet again if, when we get the recommendations from Sir Christopher Kelly, we pick and choose. We have to accept the entire package of recommendations without amendment. That is the way for us to rebuild public trust in this institution, and in us as individual politicians.