What were the MPs arguing about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8027629.stm

Version 0 of 1.

Sketch By Ben Wright Political correspondent, BBC News

High up in the public gallery, a line of blue-shirted schoolchildren looked down on the Commons chamber.

Many MPs themselves were confused about what was going on

They had come to see their MPs at work, to understand what they do.

But what they got instead was an excruciating Whitehall - or rather, Westminster - farce as the elected representatives spent another afternoon squabbling about their own expenses.

There was disbelief on all sides of the chamber as Commons leader Harriet Harman explained the government's strategy.

It was clear at the start of the day that Gordon Brown's original plan to push through a package of reforms to clean up expenses - including scrapping the controversial second homes allowance - had shrivelled up.

What MPs were facing instead was a series of votes on reforming allowances for outer London MPs, making outside earnings more transparent and changing the way parliamentary staff are employed.

But the big question mark over was what would happen to the amendment tabled by George Young, a conservative MP who chairs the important Standards and Privileges Committee.

MPs of all stripes were incredulous. It seemed an illogical position. Ben Wright <a class="" href="/1/hi/uk_politics/8027606.stm">MPs vote on expenses proposals</a>

He wanted all the government motions to be defeated so that the Commons wouldn't pre-empt the independent review into expenses that's being conducted by Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The Tories showed their hand at the start of the day and said they would back the Young plan, surprising the political pundits.

The prospect of derailing the government's plan was too tempting. That was the Lib Dem position too.

But then Ms Harman stood up and the farce began.

The government, she said, would also support the Young amendment but plough on with votes on the other reforms.

In other words, it would agree that the Commons should leave reform to Kelly while also doing some tinkering.

MPs of all stripes were incredulous. It seemed an illogical position.

'Car crash'

Conservative Alan Duncan called it a "feverish shambles" and Lib Dem David Heath slated the situation as "absurd".

MPs flicked through their order papers in bewildered confusion and some shouted "car crash" across the chamber.

Whips on all sides looked worried as their tactics were re-drawn. The government was wriggling away from what could have been a humiliating Commons defeat - the second of the week - but at some cost to its reputation.

How did this happen?

MPs know what the ongoing expenses debacle is doing to their collective reputation. Their constituents write angry letters and berate them at their surgeries.

The public thinks they are on the fiddle, padding out their salaries with free kitchens and TVs.

Eagerness

Some feel unfairly maligned but most know something must be done.

Past attempts by MPs to reform their own expenses system have failed - most dismally in July last year. So the independent Christopher Kelly was brought in to sort the whole mess out.

But because of Mr Brown's smiley YouTube video and eagerness to get some immediate reforms through, the issue went back to the Commons.

Opposition parties claim this has been nothing more that a crude - and botched - exercise in political manoeuvring. The government insists it has not.

Either way, MPs were back to arguing about where the boundary for outer London claims should be and whether their directorships should be detailed.

It was not an edifying spectacle and the schoolchildren did not stay long to watch.