The week Labour proved it's almost suicidally corrupt

Six months have passed since Tory MP Derek Conway was caught fiddling his expenses on a grand scale.

He was discovered diverting thousands of pounds of Parliamentary allowances to his son as payment for so-called 'research duties'.

But there was no official record of the Newcastle University student doing any work.

In private, many MPs from all parties claimed that Conway had done little wrong and was simply unlucky to be found out. Yet public outrage at the flagrant abuse of the Parliamentary expenses system forced action to be taken.

As widespread disgust grew ever more apparent, David Cameron  -  not a moment too soon  -  stripped the wretched Conway of the Tory Party whip.

Eventually, even Speaker Martin (reportedly a strong Conway sympathiser) had to admit that something had gone wrong and set up a special Members' Estimate Committee to consider ways of tightening MPs' notoriously lax expenses regime and make sure that such abuse would never happen again.

All the main parties were represented on the committee: by Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, the shadow leader of the House Theresa May and Nick Harvey of the LibDems.

The results of their work were published last week and contained two key proposals.

First, it was suggested that every MP's expenses should undergo independent scrutiny.

Traditionally, MPs have been allowed complete freedom to make their own expense claims.

Unfortunately, this absence of control has meant that a very large number of politicians of all parties have regarded their Commons allowance as a gigantic slush fund. 

The committee's second proposal called for MPs to submit receipts for all their expenditure.

Until very recently, they have never had to account for items that cost less than £250. It is well known that many MPs have taken advantage of this latitude to claim for money they have not spent.

(One notorious example was the former Conservative MP Michael Trend, who resigned after claiming a generous London housing allowance while, in fact, living at his Windsor constituency home.)

There was nothing unreasonable about the committee's demands. Even if put into effect in full, they would have meant that MPs would still enjoy a far laxer expenses regime than any other employee in the country. 

Even so, I don't believe that the proposals are anywhere near strong enough to prevent the monstrous abuse which allows politicians to use taxpayers' money, in the form of second-home allowances, to speculate in the property market.

With terrible predictability, when MPs came to vote on the proposals on Thursday night, they were rejected.

Incredibly, they voted to keep the squalid and corrupt system of allowances that have enabled the Derek Conways of this world to get away with their thievery for so long.

The truth is that this episode was a wretched moment in British public life. For years, Parliament has played a great role in British history.

In the 17th century it stood for individual liberty against the tyranny of Charles I. In the 19th century it became the cockpit of British democracy and the scene of the epic debates on the great issues of the day between Gladstone and Disraeli.

More recently the Commons was where Churchill spoke for the nation in the fight against fascism. 

Now, though, it is a sordid little place, where seedy people put selfenrichment above public duty.

Indeed, the letters 'MP' after a name are in danger of becoming a mark of shame and contempt.

Of course, certain honourable exemptions can be made. Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats all voted for reform, as did David Cameron's shadow Cabinet.

However, some 20 Tory MPs supported the old corrupt system  -  among them the dreadful Nick and Ann Winterton. 

This married couple used taxpayers' money to enrich themselves over a period of years without breaking any Commons rules.

Much more disturbing, however, was the conduct of government ministers.

Shamefully, 33 of them voted against the reforms, including five Cabinet members: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward, Housing Minister Caroline Flint and Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy. Both of Gordon Brown's Parliamentary aides, Ian Austin and Angela Smith, were also opposed to the proposed changes.

Gordon Brown didn't vote either way, confirming the damaging impression that he is a ditherer.

This was a sad moment for the Prime Minister. When he entered Downing Street just over a year ago, Gordon Brown promised to restore the trust in politics which had been so badly damaged by the sleaze and greed of the Blair years.

Yet on Thursday night, he allowed members of his own government to vote down proposals which would have made the air cleaner at Westminster.

While it is impossible to be sure why the Prime Minister acted in the way he did, here is my informed assessment.

The key to understanding his position is the fact that Thursday's vote on expenses followed an earlier one which involved the equally controversial issue of MPs' pay.

Facing a backbench revolt from Labour MPs who were furious at what they saw as an insulting increase in their £61,000 salary, the Prime Minister was forced to concede them a free vote on the expenses issue in return for accepting the deal on pay.

Brown knew that defeat on this vital question would have been even more embarrassing and have had a catastrophic impact on the entire government economic policy of trying to keep a tight lid on public service pay awards.

In other words, Labour MPs were told that in return to agreeing to a very small rise in their official salary, they were free to carry on fiddling their expenses.

This shabby compromise proved acceptable to the rebels, and Gordon Brown's public sector wages negotiations remain on course. But I fear that he will pay a heavy long-term cost for such low and debased politics.

Although I continue to believe Gordon Brown is personally a man of integrity, his decision on Thursday night meant that he has allowed his Labour Party to condone sleaze in a Commons vote.

He has offered David Cameron a real opportunity. Until now, brilliantly though he has performed as leader of the Opposition, Cameron has been open to the accusation that he does not present a real alternative. 

Cameron should now exploit the situation and put forward a series of tough measures that will eradicate the corruption and expenses fiddles that have tarnished British politics for so long.

If he can succeed in that, he will manage to differentiate the Tories from Labour, which this week showed it is almost suicidally corrupt.

Peter Oborn, Daily Mail