What had originally intended to be a short business meeting was eventually a long meeting dominated by an issue not on the agenda – namely MPs’ expenses – which was discussed on the basis of a tabled confidential report which was collected from NEC members at the end of the meeting.

A two hour discussion followed Gordon Brown’s report: he said how angry he was, that he would never have believed it possible, and if people don’t trust MPs, they cannot be expected to trust the government. Cath Speight (UNITE Amicus in the chair) allowed everyone to speak.

Michael Cashman argued that the whole issue was not as important as some members were suggesting – if you explained on the doorstep, everything is fine.  Glenis Willmott (Leader, EPLP) said that wasn’t her experience on the doorstep.

There was concern that some things were done which, though within “the rules”, were nevertheless wrong, but where do you draw the line between those things within “the rules” which should be tolerated and those which should not? How much is it reasonable to spend on a TV set, for example?  Nevertheless there was general agreement that something serious needed to be done and quickly. The parliamentary committee on MPs’ expenses was expected to use independent auditors to review the previous 4 years’ expenses and to recommend what was and what was not reasonable to claim within the rules, and this could then be used as a basis for action by the party.

There was a difference of opinion about whether or not to allow CLPs to restart reselections of sitting MPs.  Ellie Reeves (CLPs) proposed that CLPs be allowed to trigger a new reselection after hearing a report from their MPs, but Jack Dromey (Treasurer) said if that happened, there’d be 350 MPs being up for deselection – although Christine Shawcroft challenged him as to whether he honestly believed that 350 CLPs didn’t have confidence in their MPs. She added that Ellie Reeve’s proposal didn’t amount to another round of mandatory reselection – although she’d be happy with that.

It was recommended in the tabled report that an NEC panel comprising Cath Speight (Chair), Ann Black (Vice Chair) and Cllr Jeremy Beecham would adjudicate on whether MPs who had made unreasonable claims (whether or not they were within the rules) had also brought the party into disrepute Recommendations would be made to the NEC Organisation Committee after which they could be suspended from membership and barred from standing as Labour candidates. The General Secretary and Chief Whip could refer cases to the panel but the cases of Elliott Morley and David Chaytor would be considered as a priority (consulting with their GCs).

Peter Wheeler expressed concern that, if it were left to CLPs to adjudicate in a selection process, they would reach inconsistent decisions. Others argued that the proposed panel was a method of avoiding that, and the other undesirable possibility of GCs backing candidates who had been found to have acted unreasonably.  The General Secretary assured Peter Willsman and Christine Shawcroft that CLPs’ rights would be respected and an amendment to the original wording to enable CLPs to refer their MPs to the panel was adopted.

Gordon Brown was very firm that this process should be used to exclude people who had failed to uphold the highest standards quickly.  Ellie Reeves in the end did not push her proposal to the vote (after GMB and Unison representatives had expressed their opposition) and CLGA members of the NEC therefore backed the final recommendations.

The NEC did go on to discuss other issues including the June elections, but most of the NEC departed after this.