A giant duckhouse floats past Houses of Parliament, on November 5, 2009, as part of a demonstration calling for MPs and a referendum on the voting system. The duckhouse is a reference to Conservative opposition MP Sir Peter Viggers' claim for 1,600 pounds (Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images)
The leaders of Britain's main political parties have backed the reforms, announced on Wednesday, to curb perks for MPs after a scandal over lavish expense claims shocked recession-hit taxpayers and undermined public trust in parliament.
But lawyer Ian Kennedy, appointed to head the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) which will set pay and pension levels and expenses, is said to be unhappy with some of the proposed reforms.
The Daily Telegraph on Saturday quoted him as saying the review carried out by former civil servant Christopher Kelly, was "only one of the bases of the conversation" into the future of MP's allowances.
According to the legislation under which the IPSA was founded there was "no obligation to implement" the reforms, he said, and it was "merely (Kelly's) assumption" that it would be.
The shake-up, which would ban MP's from employing relatives and require those who made profits from the sale of second homes to hand the money over to the taxpayer, was designed to assuage public anger after disclosures they had clawed back the cost of everything from pet food to cleaning out a moat.
A general election is due by next June and the three main parties fear that disgruntled voters will switch to fringe parties or back independent candidates in protest at the antics of MPs.
They had hoped Kelly's report would finally draw a line under the saga, but Kennedy, who had been urged to implement the proposed reforms rapidly, said there was "no appetite" for legislation, the Telegraph reported, and that the review had not been a "proper" consultation.
