Archive for March, 2009

A good day to bury bad expenses

Monday, March 30th, 2009
  • A Home Secretary on the verge of resignation over allegations her husband put through porn on expenses.
  • World leaders descending on London for the G20 with expected riots.

A full news day and what better time to publish the much-delayed aggregate 2007/2008 expense totals of all MPs. These are the same aggregate totals that the House of Commons was supposed to publish back in October 2008 but felt unequal to the task.

A cynic might see this long delay as the defiant response to a High Court ruling ordering full disclosure.

I’ve put in a freedom of information request to get to the bottom of the delay and sudden about-face.

I’m all for full disclosure but must it always be done in such a reactionary, manipulative way? Haven’t the Commons authorities learned by now that best approach is one that is sensible, thought-through and respectful of the public’s right to know?

MPs 2007/2008 aggregate expense totals

Porn on the taxpayer

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

It’s one of those stories that you couldn’t have made up. But with MPs’ expenses, the scandals come so think and fast you don’t need to. Today we learn that the Home Secretary’s husband claimed two porn films on his wife’s expenses. Richard Timney, who is also Jacqui Smith’s parliamentary aide at a cost of £40,000 to the taxpayer, said he understood why people might be angry and apologised. His wife has agreed to reimburse the taxpayer for the porn (though not volunteering reimbursement for her much larger claim for a second home while living in her sister’s flat).

It’s not the first porn-on-expenses story. I’ve written before about how I began my battle for MPs expenses. It was nearly 20 years ago in Washington State. It was my first job as a reporter and I thought I’d score a great exclusive by asking the statehouse for all my local politicians expense claims. Within days I was given boxes and boxes of flight tickets, postage receipts, restaurant bills, hotel bills – even room-service bills. I was especially interested in the hotel bills. My speculation was that lonely senators had a penchant for ordering up porn in their rooms. Imagine my deflation when I discovered every single claim to be totally above board!

Bad news for a young, ambitious reporter. Good news for the taxpayers and constituents. That’s the beauty of a transparent system. It focuses the mind in a way no Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is ever going to do. Any politician remotely tempted to fiddle an expense claim in Washington also knew that all receipts and claims were open to the public, more importantly to his or her consituents. That’s what kept them honest. I’m sure most of them were honest anyway, but there are always a few bad apples. And rather than penalise the whole lot, the transparent system very clearly highlighted who was on the make.

Is it not obvious yet to the Commons authorities that the only solution is transparency? The spotlight will send a number of ugly creatures running, but isn’t that better than allowing them to remain? The quicker the Commons adopts full transparency, the sooner it will be rid of those MPs who are abusing the system and dragging all other MPs’ reputations through the mud.

How much worse can it get? Are the receipts being kept hidden so dire that this continuous flow of scandal is the better option?

The Commons were supposed to publish all expense claims and receipts in October 2008. All the documents have been photocopied, at great expense. I’ve been told the only thing holding up publication is the political will to do so. The authorities want to wait until the last possible moment; until the last day of parliament. But by then it may be too late. Parliament may not have any reputation left.

England reverting to 1960s-style secrecy

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

An interesting interview with the Scottish Information Commissioner published in today’s Sunday Herald. He mirrors my own thinking that FOI is going backwards not forwards in England with the Government’s efforts all focused on exempting MPs, nationalised banks and Cabinet from FOI and direct accountability to the people.

“Down south, the indications are that’s far from the government’s agenda. It’s more concerned with amending FoI, to make sure it doesn’t apply to things like Northern Rock and to use the veto to stop the release of Cabinet minutes.

“Those are all really negative indicators from down south, which at the moment we don’t seem to have any parallel for in Scotland.”

Last month, Jack Straw, the UK secretary of state, issued the first ministerial veto under English FoI law in order to block the of release the Iraq war Cabinet minutes. The English information commissioner had ruled they were of such public interest they should be released, as did the Information Tribunal, to which the government initially appealed.

But Straw said cabinet ministers had a right to private discussions. “The use by Jack Straw of the veto should not be at all downplayed,” said Dunion. “It is a nuclear option for a minister to press the button on using the veto and overriding not just the information commissioner, but the Information Tribunal.

“We are now getting clear signals that English legislation may be amended so that Cabinet minutes become absolutely exempt. That is quite a departure from progressive thinking in FoI. That’s going back to 1960s, 1970s thinking.”

Political Parties and Elections Bill summary

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

Julian Todd who runs Public Whip has written in to say there is now a summary of the controversial move to exempt MPs’ from having to register on the electoral roll. See:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-03-02&number=45

How democracy works

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

How does a bill like the one passed Monday become law?

Rational debate? Considered opinion? Not at all. The word of one apparatchik is law and no discussion is allowed. Read the debate for yourself:

Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether there is any precedent for taking a Division on a completely undebated new clause, which falls in a later group that we have not yet reached, which is in the hands of Back Benchers from an opposition party and which has not even been moved. Is there a precedent for that?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have made a decision, and given my ruling and the reasons why this vote has been taken. I have nothing further to add.

Sneaky MPs vote to keep addresses secret

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Just as the debate on the Political Parties and Elections Bill was about to end at 9pm last night, Julian Lewis MP stood up and sneakily inserted a clause to exempt MPs’ home addresses from being included in the electoral registers.

Yet again – one rule for us, another for our ever-more-self-important MPs.

Read more in today’s Daily Telegraph.

The High Court ruled in my case for the publication of MPs expenses that MPs’ home addresses should be published to ensure the second homes allowances were being spent properly and not abused. There were cases of MPs claiming the allowance for homes they were renting out privately, homes they were using for holidays and even homes that did not exist.

The ruling was entirely sensible and allowed MPs with a valid security threat to be exempted from disclosure. What it didn’t allow for was self-important, paranoid, conspiracy-obsessed MPs to keep secrets from their own constituents based on fevered imaginings. What shocking distrust and disrespect our leaders have for us! Meanwhile they demand from us complete transparency.

If you’ve any doubts about the Walter Mitty nature of Julian Lewis and his cronies who voted for this bill, might I point you toward someone who is possibly a wee bit more important but who, nonetheless, has no problems understanding that in a democracy a leader must be directly answerable to the people.