Search: MPs expenses changes
Downing Street risked further inflaming MPs' anger over planned expenses cuts when it insisted they would not be offered any veto on the reforms.
The recommendations of a review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, ordered by Gordon Brown at the height of the scandal, will be published next week.
Reports that there will be a call for an end to claims for mortgage payments, a ban on the employment of relatives and slashing of generous "golden handshakes" have sparked protests from some MPs.
Travel, communications and food claims are also set for deep cuts, the BBC said, under plans which the Prime Minister and other party leaders are committed to implementing.
Several MPs ridiculed the proposals, accusing Sir Christopher Kelly's review of being out of touch with reality and threatening a revolt against his reforms. But Number 10 said that although MPs would be allowed to debate the proposals and be consulted by a new expenses watchdog, they would not have a vote.
Advertisement starts
Advertisement ends
Following a statement and short debate in the Commons, responsibility for drawing up a detailed system will be handed to the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). "The Parliamentary Standards Act provides that the IPSA must consult MPs when drawing up the expenses regime, but not seek their final approval," Downing Street said.
They will not need to seek Parliament's consent for the expenses regime. MPs have agreed the Parliamentary Standards Act that takes the setting of their expenses out of their hands."
Meanwhile, former Home Office minister Tony McNulty could be facing a rebuke from Parliament's standards watchdog following an investigation into his second home allowance claims. The BBC reported that Mr McNulty will be required to apologise to the House of Commons and repay around £13,000 when the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee releases its report into his case, expected tomorrow.
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon launched an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Mr McNulty was claiming expenses on the house where his parents live.
Mr McNulty lived in the north-west London house, which he owns, until his 2002 marriage when he moved to his new wife's home, which is nearer to Westminster. However, he continued to claim a total of around £60,000 on the house, which is in his Harrow constituency. Mr McNulty insisted he had not broken the rules, as he used the house as a base when working in his constituency at weekends.
