PM’s expenses clean-up is a big trap for the Tories

Gordon Brown is claiming the moral high ground with his new policy on cleaning up MPs' expenses, revealed this morning in a ministerial statement issued by Harriet Harman, Leader of the Commons.

He wants to scrap the second homes allowance and replace it with a flat-rate attendance fee. And anyone living in grace-and-favour accommodation - which includes Brown, of course - would not be entitled to the new allowance.

Other measures would stop MPs abusing the staffing system by employing their partners and children as secretaries and researchers - all staffing would be handled by the Commons - and would ensure fuller disclosure from those MPs who earn second incomes.

In an accompanying video statement posted on the Downing Street website, the Prime Minister said the expenses issue was "casting a cloud over the whole of Parliament" and that MPs must "act urgently with interim proposals to restore people's confidence that [they] are there to serve the public and not themselves".

It is mainly Tory MPs who have lucrative second jobs and executive directorships

So, Brown's policy is all about openness, transparency, doing the right thing and finding a solution all parties will be comfortable with. Or is it? And why has he changed his view and decided to pre-empt the full review he ordered under Sir Christopher Kelly? There may be an answer.

Even before the proverbial ink was dry on the policy there were angry mutterings from the Tory benches that Brown was up to his old low down and dirty political tricks.

It is the bit about second incomes that has got the Opposition quietly seething. David Cameron knows a trap when he sees one and this one is so big and blatant it is hard to miss.

The relevant section states: "Where MPs have a second source of income from second jobs, irrespective of whether it is in their capacity as an MP, every payment shall be declared with a full description of who paid and what for. There shall also be a full declaration of the hours worked for the payment received."

Seems perfectly fair - until you remember that, one or two left-wing barristers apart, it is predominantly Tory MPs who have lucrative second jobs, executive directorships, and so on.

A number of them have previously warned Cameron against accepting any deal that would require them to account for every single penny. Some are worried, for example, that if they receive thousands of pounds as an executive director for virtually no work, voters might start asking what it is their second employer has asked them to do in Parliament on their behalf.

Of course, they argue, they are not up to anything dodgy, but it might not look like that to voters who are increasingly suspicious about their activities. So, Cameron is likely to come under severe pressure to veto any deal with this element in it.

At which point Brown can accuse him of being the "roadblock to reform", the same taunt Cameron used to throw at him over Tony Blair's welfare measures.

This looks like a win-win situation for the Prime Minister. Remember Brown's claims that it was Cameron who blocked reform of political party funding because of the suggested cap on individual donations? Well here we go again. ·