Now for Westminster...

Tweet The report by Sir Roger Jones and his panel on the pay and expenses of AMs contains a large number of recommendations. In other circumstances, there are one or two points of detail (mostly minor) which I suspect ought to be subject to a little more debate; but in the current climate, I don't see how any of the parties can do other than accept the report in full, and that's what I expect to happen.

I don't doubt that there will be some AMs in all parties who might harbour reservations about aspects of the proposals; but it would be a career-limiting move to start expressing those reservations, let alone rejecting any of the recommendations.

Westminster has already launched its own review of the system of expenses, which will report later this year. Whilst there may be some minor differences as a result of the different nature of the two institutions, they are likely to struggle to justify any significant differences of principle, and I expect Westminster to follow the lead set by the Assembly.

Is it enough?

Tweet There have really been two aspects to the issue of MPs expenses. The first has been whether the rules have been too open to abuse - and the second is whether some honorable members have been too ready to abuse them. For me, the second was always the bigger problem. The rules were laid down on the basis that honorable members could be trusted to behave as such, and the simple reality is that some of them have not.

The government moved yesterday to change the rules, and as far as I can see, the changes they are proposing are, in principle, sensible ones. But will they be enough to stop the obvious abuses which have attracted so much attention? The omens are not good.

I heard an interview with Liam Byrne yesterday, in which a series of specific cases were put to him, with the follow-up question in each case - 'would these changes stop that?'. I was somewhat puzzled by his inability to give an affirmative answer on any count. It made me wonder whether things aren't quite as simple as they might seem. Even the new rules do not really deal with the attitude amongst so many (and not just MPs, by the way) that, if the rules don't forbid it, then it must be OK; and there are elements of the new rules which are likely to be equally open to abuse.

They say that individual cases make bad law. I agree; but good law still needs to show how it addresses those individual cases. This one has longer to run.