Four years ago, the Clarke Committee's report on parliamentary salaries had among its recommendations that MPs file two annual reports.

One of these would be a parliamentary transparency declaration, or a statement about their personal finances and sources of income. This would go further on the more benign declaration that MPs are now required to file with the Parliamentary Integrity Commission, which is very honoured in the breach.

The second report recommended by the Clarke Committee would be a review of the MP's stewardship over the previous year. This would include statements about his constituency work as well as an accounting for public monies to which he/she had access, such as that well-loved favourite trough of politicians, the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP).

Pork barrel

Of course, the SESP has now morphed into a larger and deeper pork barrel, the Constituency Development Fund. So, MPs have more to distribute, but still without any greater demand for public accountability.

The point is that the former government did not implement the Clarke Committee's report and the present one has so far showed no sign that it intends to do so. Which makes Mr Peter Bunting's initiative all the more interesting.

Peter Bunting was elected as a member of the House for Central Manchester in last September's general election. He previously had a stint in the legislature in the early 1990s. In between his two periods in the House, he substantially owned and ran a successful and listed investment bank, which was recently acquired by a transnational financial conglomerate. Peter Bunting, therefore, is accustomed to shareholder accountability and corporate transparency, as opaque as that sometimes can be.

This past Sunday, Peter Bunting, in a paid advertisement in this newspaper released a quarterly report on his constituency/parliamentary/party activities. It was also posted on his website. The report was the second since he became MP.

No breakdown of expenditures

We learned that in the January to March period, Peter Bunting held appointment meetings with about 300 constituents (400 in the previous quarter) and through the SESP and other programmes assisted over 300 people. There was, unfortunately, no balance sheet breakdown of the expenditures.

There is also information of some of the other developments in Central Manchester during the review period and plans for the next quarter.

Peter Bunting's report, shortcomings notwithstanding, is refreshing and a move in the right direction. He might find public relations value in the exercise, but by providing information he helps his constituents, and the rest of us, to make judgements about his performance as MP.

Independently wealthy

Of course, other parliamentarians will remind us that Peter Bunting is independently wealthy, so he can afford the advertisement, the cost of PR experts who helped to produce the document, and to maintain the website. That is true.

Indeed, the Clarke Committee had proposed that MPs get a total of six per cent of their salaries for filing the recommended reports, as well as cash/support for constituency offices. It is time we move towards implementation.

This, however, does not preclude MPs becoming creative in accounting for their stewardship. It need not be the law for them to file reports in Parliament - on a few sheets of foolscap paper. All that is required is a desire to be transparent.