MPs forced to divulge further details of expenses

The Information Commissioner has made a ruling today concerning the issue of MPs expenses (HERE). The effect of this is that further general details of sums paid to MPs as Additional Costs Allowance, such as the total amounts piad for such things as mortgages, ulitiy bills, insurance and so on, must be disclosed, although, as we argue below, the ruling does not go far enough.

“The complainant asked for copies of original submissions with copies of receipts, rental agreements, or mortgage interest statements from six named MPs in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner found that the House does not hold rental agreements or mortgage interest statements in respect of all the six named MPs. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings.”

The linked PDF file says this:

“The Information Commissioner’s decision strikes the right balance between transparency and accountability for public expenditure and the private lives of MPs and their families. The Information Commissioner has ruled that the total amounts claimed by some individual MPs under the additional cost allowance - the regime for MPs to reclaim expenses for running one home close to Westminster and one in their constituency - should be released under specific headings. These include: mortgage costs; hotel expenses; other food; service charges; utilities; telecommunications charges; furnishings; maintenance & service agreements; cleaning; insurance; basic security measures; other. The Commissioner ruled that, as expenses are claimed directly by MPs in relation to their public duties, the public has a right to know the total amounts claimed under these specific headings.”

With great respect to the Information Commissioner, the generality of this decision is wrong in principle. There is a legitimate public interest in some of the details that he has concluded should remain private being subject to full disclosure.

We do not include amongst these items an MP’s telephone or gas bills, nor is there any legitimate interest in the furnishings he or she may have or what steps to insure and secure the premises may have been taken or what his arrangements are with Mrs. Mopp the cleaning lady.

There is, however, we submit, a legitimate and overriding interest in the nature of the ownership of any house or flat in respect of which the additional cost allowance is being made. In addition there is also a legitimate interest in who the Mortgagor of any property is.

Suppose, for example, the MP is claiming mortgage expenses when the house or flat is not in his or her name? Or the house or flat is jointly owned with another person, in particular a member of his immediate family? There is a legitimate interest in examining this information so that the MP can demonstrate that the allowance is being made for the purpose for which it is intended, namely reimbursing a payment he would not need to make unless he was an MP, rather than simply enriching his family’s coffers.

Alternatively, suppose that the mortgagor of a house he or she is ostensibly buying is a company of which the MP is a major shareholder. Then it would be legitimate to have this information so that the electorate can see that the whole transaction is open and above board and that the Taxpayer is getting genuine value for money. Similarly if the MP was the shareholder of a company owning a block of flats, one of which was leased by the MP, there is a legitimate public interest in having full details of this so that a check may be kept on whether the rental claimed represents a genuine a transaction rather than one which was deliberately inflated so as to cause an unjust financial benefit to the MP.

We also have a quibble concerning allowances made for food. On what possible basis can a claim for food be made? MPs have to eat, come what may and is not forced to eat extra because he is away from home. We ought to have full details of why he needs to be recompensed for food.

For complete transparency details of mortgage and rental payments ought to be placed Online, together with all other expenses claims, so that an MPs claims for expenses can be seen to be entirely above board. Appropriate redactions can be made to protect sensitive details such as those of bank account details, of course, but there is, we feel, no reason why most of this information should not be in the public domain.

The bad, but utterly predictable news is that The House of Commons is almost certain to appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling.

When passing laws for ID cards or new powers of ‘stop & search’, MPs are the first to say “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”. Well then, MPs surely have nothing to worry about in being open and above board about their expenses, do they? So, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

Instead they seem determined to resist at every turn the reasonable and legitimate desire of the Taxpayer to ensure that their money is being properly spent. Even if all is above board, they seem quite bent on raising the strong suspicion that some of them, at least, do have something to hide.

Progress At Last

The news that David Maclean’s shabby little Bill has been smothered in its cot will be welcomed in many quarters. It comes as no surprise that Maclean was unable to find a sponsor in The House of Lords, given that his Bill had acquired the status of a hot iPod offered for sale down your local pub for a tenner.

It seems to have escaped the attention of the press that the Government Whips Office had a big hand in getting this Bill through Third reading. During the final debates no less than eleven out of thirteen Whips voted for the Bill on procedural matters and on the final vote nine out of thirteen did so. Seventy-six out of the ninety-five supporters of the Bill’s Third Reading were Labour members, thirty six of them members of the Government (including PPSs).

This had become a de facto Government Bill.

No wonder, given how many Labour member’s expenses had come in for searching scrutiny in the press.

What now?

Firstly all must be on their guard against some sly, underhand, cheapjack plot to reduce in any way the present level of information concerning MPs and Peer’s expenses. One would not put it beyond Straw and the Whips to have another go whilst we are not looking since the effort they put into getting this one through Parliament suggests considerable determination to cover up their felonies which in turn suggests that the level of scrutiny and coverage so far has really touched a raw nerve: ie they realize they have been caught red-handed!

Secondly, given the damage that this distasteful episode has done to the reputation of Parliament and MPs, has not the time come to shame them into establishing ONLINE Registers of MPs and Peers expenses as has already been done with considerable success by the Scottish Parliament?

(See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/searchGuidance.htm)

An ePetition calling upon the Government to do precisely this has been started on the No. 10 website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mpexpensesonline/ and a Draft Bill that provides a framework for both such a scheme and for criminal sanctions for those who make false or reckless claims whilst applying for their expenses from the authorities is proposed at http://www.freewebs.com/mpsexpensesregisterbill/. Perhaps readers might care to support the petition if they think it a good idea or to comment one way or the other.

Maclean's Bill Dies Unloved

According to ConservativeHome (HERE), The Times (HERE) and The Daily Mail (HERE) and doubtless others, Maclean's Freedom Of Information Amendment Bill 2007 has failed to find a sponsor in the House of Lords and it would appear that it has now met its just desserts at the hands of their Lordships who have, not for the first time, shown a great deal more sound commonsense than their elected counterparts in the Commons.

Whilst there remains a theoretical chance that a Peer may yet be found to do Maclean's dirty work at the crossroads, perhaps we can now give thanks that we still have a House of Lords that is not a mere mirror of the Commons and that is a repository of that sort of commonsense and good judgement that tells them to run a mile from this sort of self-indulgent and self-destructive behaviour on the part of the Commons.

News from the Trough

If ever one needed a clear demonstration of why we need an Online Register of MPs and Peer's Expenses, this report from today's Mail on Sunday should be the complete answer.

Of particular significance is this paragraph:

"The Commons authorities refused to say how much money is paid out to MPs for European trips. A spokesman said: "The House authorities are not prepared to comment on how many Members are in receipt of this allowance nor whether there have been refusals of claims."

It seems that our political elite is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of open and transparent government. What possible reason can they have, however ludicrous, for preventing the taxpayer from knowing the details of and analysing the use or misuse of expenses paid out for MP's junketing?

The reason, in case you had somehow not guessed it, is that they know the truth is shocking and that publishing the details will reveal a serious and disgraceful scandal in the way some MPs are simply having a good time at our expense.

HERE you can sign the ePetition to get our lords and masters to put their expenses online.

Slow Progress

Trying to interest the press in a petition of this sort is a trying experience. There is much of the chicken and egg about it: they are not interested unless you are getting lots of signatures and you are going to find it hard to get a real sackful of signatures unless the press take an interest in your petition. Hrmph!

There has been a kind response from the Blog "Burning Our Money": Blogger Wat Tyler has been very complimentary and has agreed to blog the petition and add a link for which one is very grateful.

Thus far ten signatures: oh well, Rome was not built in a day!!

Maclean's Bill Hits The Skids

LibDem MP John Hemming is reporting HERE that the Lord Trefgarne is no longer sponsoring David Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2007. On the face of it a private member's Bill which is unable to attract a sponsor in the Lords will not proceed and will therefore fail to become law.

This is excellent news as it will leave MP's expenses subject to the status ante quo, to wit that a fair amount of information concerning MP's expenses will continue to be available to the electorate.

That does not, however, obviate the need for a completely open and transparent system of having every detail of MP's and Peer's expenses available online, subject only to the requirements of the personal security of the individual MP or Peer or their employees. Thus nothing which discloses banking or credit card details will be available.

Many MP's and Peers will doubtless complain bitterly that this is an unacceptable intrusion into their privacy. Intrusion it certainly is but this is part of the price they are having to pay in order to restore public confidence in the system of salaries, pensions, allowances and expenses. In this case the public interest in having a full open disclosure online of all these details far outweighs their privacy.

It may be that there is a very very occasional item where a proper case can be made for withholding some or all details of some particular item. Rules can properly be devised to allow for an application to withhold details but it should be clear that such an application can only be granted for the most exceptional matters and that the MP or Peer will have to clear a very high hurdle in order to succeed.

The strong presumption must be in favour of full disclosure of every application for the payment of allowances and expenses, including those applications which are refused. If this is brought into force there is every reason to believe that, when no more Xmas iPods and Fish Tanks are being paid for by the public we will see a real slimming down of Parliamentary Expenses.

Petition goes online

The petition was approved today at about 5 p.m. Now I shall be getting on with the business of getting out some press releases and informing slected journalists who have written on the MPs expenses theme recently as well as relevant blogs.

Further details in due course.

Help Yourselves!

One aspect of the fall-out of the Labour ‘Cash for Peerages” and ‘Cash for Access’ culture which this Dead Duck Prime Minister has done so much to foster is the impact it may have upon the funding of political parties.

The taxpayer should beware what the political elite has in mind for their money. Plan ‘A’ is for political parties to receive a big annual dollop of public money based upon a formula that will give each party £0.50p a year for each vote cast for it at the previous general election, plus £0.25p for every vote it secured in elections to the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.

Other proposals seek to cap the amount of any one donation to £50,000 which will be resisted by Labour who rely on six-figure handouts from their political masters, the Trades Unions. But it is the proposal to dole out £25 million to political parties that will stick in the craw of the British people.

Our political elite already have their snouts firmly stuck in the trough of public money: now they want more. Such a system already exists in Germany, for example, yet German politicians have continued to be involved in scandals concerning political fundraising. This proposed largess will have the immediate and deleterious effect of making our political parties even more detached and remote from their own activists, let alone ordinary voters, In future they will not have to go out so much on the ‘rubber chicken circuit’ and spend interminable evenings being harangued about the virtues of nationalizing the railways or bringing back the birch: the money will arrive every month in the party bank account, all ready for whatever junket the politicians can devise for themselves.

This scheme will simply entrench the existing parliamentary parties still further, making it yet harder for a new party to break into the mould. Party politics will atrophy as the parties no longer have to go out and work for their funds. The activists and the ordinary voter will find themselves at an ever greater remove form their party leaders who will rarely deign to bother with a fundraising event unless it’s a £1000-a-plate champagne supper to meet and greet the great and the good.

Not one single brass farthing should be given to political parties. They should have donations capped at £50,000 a throw and the existing funds now given to them (The so-called “Short Money”) should no longer be paid. One sure way of forcing politicians to get to grips with real people with real problems and aspirations is to force them out of the MetroBubble into the real world to compete for the more modest donations of ordinary citizens. If a party cannot raise the funds to stay in business, then it does not deserve to survive. Paying parties fat sums of Taxpayer’s money will simply have the same effect that propping up Nationalised industries, creating a class of fat lazy inefficient complacent political parties that do not have to work to maintain a relationship with ordinary voters.

Not the least important factor here is the body of polling evidence which so strongly suggests that electors do no want to see their political parties funded out of public money. For politicians to vote themselves a further heavy dollop of their cash would be, of itself, to widen the chasm between governing and governed. You would have thought that politicians would recognise this easily for themselves, but, so filled with amour propre are they that they believe we actually love and value them such that we would not notice an extra £25 million or so. They are hopelessly deluded if they think that we care for them enough to bankroll without question all the spin, smears and lies.

MPs in New Expenses Scandal: ipods, Plasma TVs and Fishtanks

The Times other story about the scandal of MPs expenses clearly demonstrates that when it comes to shoving their snouts into the trough, some members of our political elite are quite out of control.

As The Times reports (HERE), one claim was made for a Plasma TV and a fish tank. What is almost remarkable than that fact alone is that the Commons authorities allowed the claim. The fact of the making of the claim is a real jawdropper in the first place but that it was allowed is mind-boggling.

Holly Watt and Robert Winnett go on in their excellent piece to reveal that in the run up to Christmas 2006 there was a sudden run of applications for iPods.

As MPs gobble up £87 million in expenses a year at the moment, there is a clear and urgent need for them to be reined in. Nobody thinks they should be deprived of expenses and allowances that genuinely reflect the work that is necessary for them to hold Government to account but one is quite confident that a fish tank or a nice iPod at Christmas is not necessary for that task.

One way in which all these excesses could be curbed is by placing online a register of MPs and Peer’s expenses with full details of all claims made (even if disallowed) together with their supporting materials. This is particularly important given MPs current desire to hide their expenses from the Taxpayer by their disgraceful support (mostly from the Government, in particular the Whips Office) for MP David Maclean’s Freedom of Amendment Bill 2007 which will have the legal effect of permitting MPs to refused to reveal their expenses.

Quite why MPs are unable to follow the excellent example of Phillip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering who only claims £50,000 (the average being £131,000), is a matter for anxious debate.

MP Derek Conway in Expenses Imbroglio

Yet more scandalous news on the MPs expenses front as more snouts are discovered at the bottom of the trough.

The Times has clearly got a mole working somewhere in the system, to judge by two reports it has carried in recent days, each of which will on its own outrage the British Taxpayer, especially now it takes so long to reach ‘Tax Freedom Day’. This post deals with the first such.

Firstly on 27^th. May The Times had THIS on Sir Edward Heath’s successor, Derek Conway (Con. Old Bexley and Sidcup). He is evidently not shy about employing members of his family.

Let us take the case of his son, Frederick Conway. He is a full-time University Undergraduate reading geography with a view to graduating this summer. One may infer from that that he is working at full stretch in order to ensure he gets the best possible degree for his future employment prospects. One wonders therefore how he can fit in the sort of hours research for his MP Father at the rate of £981.00 per month (£11,772 per annum). Let us say his work is worth £20 per hour, a pretty good rate for someone without a degree: that represents some 49 hours per month research, 11 hours per week. It simply beggars belief that Mr. Conway the only person he could find to be his researcher is his as yet unqualified son who just happens to be going through the rather expensive business of going through university.

It does not end there though. The Rotten Borough of Old Bexley and Sidcup also sees the employment of Mrs. Conway as Mr. Conway’s registered parliamentary assistant at a salary of £3271 per month (£39, 252 per annum). Taken together with his MPs salary of £60,277, there is a gross income per annum of £111,301 flowing into the Conway Gravy Bowl. Nice work if you can get it.

Conway, as The Times reports, has previous, it seems, having, in 2005-6, claimed £4,072 for car mileage, which can be claimed for journeys between home, Westminster and the constituency, and for travel up to 20 miles outside of an MP’s seat on local business. Conway’s claim would equate to about 1,000 trips between Westminster and his constituency. He also claims, of course, a full whack of the allowance for a second home nearer Westminster even though his constituency is, according to www.multimap.com, 12.2 miles from Westminster. In 2004/2005 he was, according to www.theyworkforyou.com the highest such claimant; in 2003/2004 he was the 3^rd. highest such claimant; in 2002/2003 he was again the highest such claimant; In 2001/2002 he was the 2^nd. highest such claimant. See HERE.

Whilst all this is no doubt absolutely legal according to the rules governing allowances, the question is whether this sort of thing ought to be legal.

This story once again demonstrates clearly the need for complete transparency concerning MP’s and Peer’s expenses and allowances. Putting them online with complete detail in the way the Scottish Parliament does is the only way we are going to begin to get to grips with our high-spending political elite. In particular we should be able to have a declaration from each claimant MP or Peer concerning the existence of any relationship, by blood, marriage or other degree of intimacy or even business with anyone who is a recipient of Taxpayer’s money.

ePetition Rejected and resubmitted

No 10 has rejected the petition on the basis that the application contained references to Websites (which were the website containing the draft bill and the Blog for news of the petition. The application has now been amended and the ePetition resubmitted. As that was their only objection, there is no reason why it should not appear almost immediately, but do not hold your breath.