|
Time to take a stand...
Hi all
As the expenses issue rolls into its third week, blotting out public
discussion of anything else, I'd like to discuss some implications for
democracy on a wider scale and suggest ways in which a stand needs to be
taken.
I'd be grateful if you'd read this one even if you usually just skim my
stuff: I'm going to suggest some things that I want to do, but also some
things that I'd like to ask you to do. It seems to me that the entire
political class is `behind the curve' at the moment, and we need
leadership and a certain amount of courage at local as well as national
level: too many people are cowering behind their desks, hoping the issue
will go away.
1. Public meeting in Beeston
First, although I'm grateful that lots of you have written to say you
think I'm honest, I'm conscious that there will be people out there who
barely know who I am and have no idea whether I've got a moat and a
Ferrari and have been ripping off the taxpayer for years. So I'm calling a
public meeting next Thursday with a triple agenda:
a) Describing the system up to now, the types of use, abuses, evasion and
outright fraud that have come to light, and the exact scale of the
problem. See analysis of this below.
b) Presenting details of the expenses related to my rented flat in London
in detail, and inviting any questions that anyone wants to ask about it.
c) Putting forward my provisional proposals for Kelly's Committee on
Standards in Public Life, which is soliciting input for their
recommendations (which all parties have in principle agreed in advance to
accept, whatever they are), and asking people in the meeting to vote on
the proposition: "If the proposals on housing are adopted, we will feel
that the issue of future second home expense claims has been properly
addressed". More below, again.
It's on Thursday May 28, at Roundhill School, Foster Avenue, Beeston (by
the Town Hall), from 7 to 9. There is no charge, thought we'll have a
whip-round to cover costs. There is no connection with the election
campaign and taking part has no implication of support for any party. The
meeting will be chaired by Charlie Walker of the Evening Post. Come if you
can there is a lynch mob atmosphere towards politicians in general at
the moment, and it's important for a sensible discussion that the audience
is not solely composed of people who want to string us *all* up.
Which takes us to
2. Voting for individuals at the County elections
Some of you have told me that they're so disgusted that they plan not to
vote at all on June 4. With respect, this is bonkers. What we've seen
quite clearly is that each party has a mixture of decent people and people
on the make. If you don't vote, you explicitly waive your annual
opportunity to influence this in favour of the decent ones. It's as though
you'd had a disappointment in love, and decided to let the patrons of the
pub down the road decide whom you should marry next. Moreover, if
abstention is widespread, there's a real possibility that you will shortly
be represented at both County and European level for the next 4 years by
folk who think the main problem about Broxtowe is that it has too many
black people in it. Moreover, it's a huge disincentive to people who go
into politics for the right reasons if you'll treat them on exactly the
same level as someone sleazy, why should they bother?
To help the choice, I'll try to give a brief truthful assessment of the
outlook, to help you decide if you want to vote tactically for a good
local person:
Beauvale: Nail-biting finale last time saw veteran Conservative David
Taylor take the seat by just 16 votes from Labour, with a big BNP
incursion. Everyone is trying again and it makes sense to vote either for
David or Labour's Jen Cole, who is fighting hard to get the seat back.
Beeston North: Sitting councillor is the LibDem Steve Carr, who won the
seat originally from Labour but has built a large personal following
through hard work. If the national polls are correct, the Conservatives
could be close to gaining this one and it's possible that some Labour and
Green voters will go tactically for Steve. There's a separate borough
by-election in the northern part of the ward, with Steve's wife Barbara up
against former councillor Wayne Kirkham for Labour.
Beeston South and Attenborough: I'll declare an interest as the sitting
councillor, Labour's Pat Lally, works two days a week for me. This is
almost the mirror image of North; the Conservatives are on national polls
close to gaining this, but there is also a strong BNP effort (their
candidate is the likely GE candidate against me) and Pat, who with his
wife Lynda has been working for Beeston for many years, may get support
from LibDems (who are not really campaigning much here) and Greens.
Bramcote and Stapleford: LibDems Stan Heptinstall and Brian Wombwell seem
likely to see off all-comers, though Labour's Geoff Ward and Stapleford
champion John McGrath are working hard. A UKIP candidate, but no BNP.
Chilwell and Toton: similarly, Tories Richard Jackson and Tom Pettengell,
two of the most respected local Tories, look safe, but both BNP and UKIP
are standing, as well as my Labour colleagues Ed Jacobs and Atul Joshi,
plus LibDems and Greens.
Kimberley and Trowell: Particularly interesting multi-party battle don't
vote tactically here as almost anyone could win. The friendly LibDem
councillor, Ken Rigby, who has a huge personal vote in Trowell, is being
challenged by the famously indefatigable Richard Robinson, who has held
the seat before for Labour and has an equally huge personal vote in
Kimberley. There's also a strong effort from Shane Easom for the Tories,
and there are BNP and Green candidates too in an area near BNP strongholds
it's likely to be a real nail-biter.
Nuthall: Almost uniquely in Britain, this is a duel, with sitting
Conservative Philip Owen facing the current Broxtowe mayor, Independent
Sue Wildey. Labour and the LibDems have not put up candidates here so Sue
has a clear shot: although Philip is possibly the most formidable
Conservative councillor, Sue has a strong following wind as `the lady in
the white dress' pledged to bring a fresh non-party flavour to the county
council: she's likely to get lots of tactical votes.
Last but not least there's the European election. Last time lots of people
tried the 'vote for a wild protest candidate' idea, and we've had 4 years
represented by Mr Kilroy-Silk, who I understand lives in Spain, though he
attends Strasbourg often enough to collect his pay. He's not standing
again...
Apart from voting, would you like to help in the final stages of these
elections to help ward off the lunatic fringe? If so, let me know!
3. The Westminster scene
There's pretty general demoralisation on both side of the House, frankly
MPs on all sides discovering that old friends have apparently been milking
the system, and waiting to see who gets the next bullet. I regretfully
stuck my neck out to call for the Speaker to step down (see
http://www.thisisno ttingham. co.uk/news/ Notts-MP- wants-Speaker-
s-head/article- 1002269-detail/ article.html) but that's not because I
think he was the core of the problem he's a nice man for normal times
but just didn't rise to the occasion. It is absolutely essential that we
don't regard his removal as `solving' the problem, which goes back to much
broader questions of attitude.
The Telegraph is continuing to recoup the reported £150,000 they paid for
the disk by spinning the story out with a few revelations each day. I'm
sure it's doing wonders for their sales, but it would be in the public
interest if they got on with it and published the full list quickly,
rather than drag it out for months. The cases they're reporting fall into
separate categories that in my opinion need to be treated differently, but
there's a common factor to many of them: the belief that anything legal is
OK. It's that underlying attitude (and I'm sure MPs are not unique in it)
that in my opinion needs to change. Categories:
a) People who deliberately lied
Any MP who appears to have deliberately deceived the Fees Office by
claiming non-existent mortgages or the like should be deselected by their
parties and face a full police investigation. This is, if proved, the
equivalent of tax evasion and should be treated in the same way. This
category appears to be small around three cases so far.
b) People who bent the rules for profit
Several dozen MPs have found ways to make money out of the system,
typically by `flipping' first declaring one house to be the `second
home', doing it up, then changing the designation and selling it. This
wasn't illegal but it was a blatant abuse (equivalent to tax avoidance
e.g. having your salary paid in the Virgin Islands). Some apparent cases
do have good reasons for a change in second home they were appointed as
Ministers (which used to *require* you to designate London as your main
home), a family member died, etc. But a full explanation is required.
c) People who bought luxury items
The rules say that all purchases should be necessary to do the job and
live in London and unnecessary extravagance should be avoided. The last
bit has evidently been almost ignored the general Fees Office culture
has apparently been that anything that makes life comfortable in the
second home is OK, so some MPs have got everything from wall-hangings to
moat-cleaning to huge TV sets to luxury fittings to the latest, the duck
island. Wealthier MPs in this category have generally declared London as
their main home, so the extravagant expenses have gone on improving their
country homes.
I can't see any justification for any of this, except that the vagueness
and lax enforcement of the `no unnecessary extravagance' rule has led
people to think that the allowance was an entitlement to give themselves a
great environment. As it happens, I've always simply rented furnished
flats, but I did buy a sofa and mattress from IKEA to replace the
weather-beaten ones from the landlord. I paid for them myself I don't
think the idea that I could, let alone should, have claimed for them ever
crossed my mind. Similarly, a couple of months back I decided to buy a
set-top box so I could get more channels on the London TV why not? But
again I paid for it myself.
d) People who have messy records
Many MPs seem to have made honest mistakes. The Tory whip who was
highlighted yesterday as `claiming a non-existent mortgage' turns out to
have had that precise mortgage on his second home, but he absent-mindedly
kept entering his main home as the address instead. As he's made no money
out of it at all, this seems credible.
The system is complicated enough to make genuine errors easy, and the
understaffed Fees Office doesn't have the time to analyse every claim. I
discovered I'd overclaimed for council tax after moving to a new flat, and
if I'd not reported it and offered a refund I doubt if it would have come
to light. Similarly, I've just had a British Gas refund (because I used
less electricity than expected) which I need to report. I saw an obscure
negative direct debit "Brgas -£38" on my online bank statement, and went
to my online British Gas statement and found they'd paid the refund, but
again if I'd not noticed it nobody would have known. I'm not the most
orderly of people and under constant time pressure, so I'd much prefer it
if the rent, council tax and utilities were simply paid directly by
Parliament no fiddles, no mistakes, total transparency.
e) People who use the system as designed
Some of the criticism is simply that people claim allowances at all, even
when they're for the intended purpose. There's an Evening Standard story
this week contrasting a Devon LibDem MP with someone from Devon who lives
in a tent the implication is that the MP is being greedy for expecting a
roof over his bed at all. Similarly, the Mail praises a Labour MP for
sleeping on the floor in her office.
This goes further than I think is reasonable, but I'd be interested in
your views. As I've reported before, I use the allowance to rent a
one-bedroom flatlet very near Parliament, with a rent of £1750/month
that's typical for the area: it's the smallest place I've ever lived in.
It's certainly true that if I moved to, say, Brixton, I'd pay less rent.
The trade-off would be that I'd spend more time commuting, often late at
night when I currently try to keep on top of the email flow. I'd argue
that most people would make the same choice.
To take a local comparison: if you were assigned to do a job at Boots for
a government agency that kept you working late most nights, and were told
you could have enough rent allowance to stay nearby in Beeston, would you
insist on commuting from The Meadows or even sleeping on the floor in the
office, in order to save the taxpayer money? If so, I'm impressed, but I
wonder if it's really a reasonable requirement.
That said, the arrangement is about to bite me on the bottom, since the
agreement that the party leaders reached last week caps rent claims at
£1250. As I have a long break clause in the rental agreement, unless
there's some transitional arrangement this means I'll be around £4000 out
of pocket before I can move. It's a fairly common problem we'll see if
the Kelly recommendations solve it, otherwise it's Brixton ho!
4. A reform package
One of Obama's advisers likes to say "Never miss the chance to use a
crisis as an opportunity" . We can use this to rethink how we do politics,
and try to re-establish the idea of politicians leading and setting an
example. That's not as impossible as you might think bear in mind that
there are 646 MPs, and probably fewer than 10% have had any serious
allegations against them. But we need to get ahead of the curve. What I
plan to propose is this:
a) Basic accommodation rent-free, but owned by Parliament.
MPs from outside Greater London should be offered somewhere in a nearby
block of flats (such as County Hall), to include a bedroom, a living room,
basic fittings and kitchenware, a good computer with broadband connection,
a TV, and utilities and council tax paid. These costs would be paid
directly by Parliament. MPs would get no other living costs that's what
the salary is for. (On the other hand, they'd be free to use the flat as
they think fit add personal items, have their daughter to visit,
whatever.)
If MPs don't like the flats, they are of course free to live wherever else
they like, at their expense.
b) Fair salary
The salary should be set by an independent body, comparing with medium
civil service pay, and its recommendations implemented towards the end of
each Parliament without either Government or MPs having a chance to change
them. New candidates would know what to expect for the next Parliament.
There would be incentives for non-Ministerial roles which involve
additional responsibility, such as taking part in Select Committees, so
that MPs would no longer need to go the ministerial route to earn a better
salary. With many of the allowances abolished, I think a higher salary
might be justifiable, to be phased in after the current economic crisis.
c) Defined contribution pension
In accordance with current normal practice, future pension contributions
would go into a defined contribution scheme, and final salary benefits
frozen at the current level.
d) Shared Communication Allowance
At present, MPs can spend £10,000 a year on non-partisan communications
e.g. I've used some of mine to survey Attenborough residents about flood
protection, consult Nuthall residents about a pharmacy, and alert people
to proposal for Green Belt development. They're commonly also used for
ostensibly non-political Annual Reports, showing lots of photos of MPs
doing community things. The information function is important (with 70,000
constituents, I simply can't afford to print and post regular letters to
everyone), but it does give an incumbency bonus. I propose that it be
reduced to £8000, but the runner-up in each constituency should be given a
£5000 allowance on the same basis (must be non-partisan) , enabling
residents to see two views of what's going on. If the runner-up loses
interest (i.e. doesn't plan to stand again), (s)he would be free to
designate another person from the party that they stood for to inherit the
allowance.
e) Recall
As in the US, if a large proportion of the constituents of an MP decide
they wish to force an election, it ought to be possible say a petition
signed by 30% (about 21000 people). This would enable constituents of MPs
whose behaviour fell seriously short of what was expected to avoid having
them hanging around until the end of the Parliament, but it'd be difficult
enough to avoid mass eviction whenever a party was temporarily unpopular.
The basic idea of the package would be to offer reasonable, stable terms
and conditions for MPs, with useful information flow from both sides in
every constituency and an emergency mechanism in case of serious disgrace.
If something like this happens, won't we all feel a bit better about our
system?
Feedback welcome, as always, and I hope to see many of you at the meeting.
Next email I'd like to get back to other topics, including a detailed
assessment of the risk of the return of an open-cast mine project in our
area.
As always, please add No Need To Reply if you don't need an answer. I had
a record last week with an angry constituent emailing me 33 times in a
couple of days, including pictures he'd done of photoshopped MPs' corpses
I've done something I've never done before, putting him on the spam list
so I don't see his stuff at all. I'm always willing to listen, but it's a
bit of a balancing act: if the line isn't drawn *somewhere* it's literally
impossible to do the job!
Best regards
Nick |
