MPs who have hated the introduction of much tighter rules on the declaration of outside interests – hours worked and pay – will hate one other feature of the much-leaked Kelly report.
Sir Christopher Kelly isn’t satisfied with the transparency plans already laid down and suggests going further.
He wants potential MPs to make a declaration to their constituents before an election saying just how much they intend to work on the side.
It would not be operable for this coming general election but would be for future ones. On another proposal, there’s some confusion in Westminster about how Sir Christopher Kelly came to talk of only “12 constituencies” being affected by his proposed change to the second home allowance zone when he talked to party leaders yesterday.
Sir Christopher estimates that if you apply the one hour rule (he calculates that as a journey time of one hour from the gates of the Commons to a station in your constituency – including time taken to get to main London terminus, not including the journey from your constituency station to your actual constituency home) then only an additional 12 MPs lose their allowance on top of the many who lost out when the “20 mile radius” from Westminster rule was introduced earlier this year.
That doesn’t seem like much of a saving, stripping 12 MPs of the allowance, given that one of the tasks for the committee was meant to be cutting the overall costs of MPs’ expenses.
Quite a few MPs started the day talking about all sorts of wheezes and schemes that might allow them to frustrate or significantly amend the Kelly recommendations, forgetting that in the frenzied aftermath of the Telegraph expenses stories they had stripped themselves of the power to determine their own expenses.
One MP reminded me of one celebrated case where an MP tried to make sure he would get his hands on the sliding scale “golden goodbyes” which Sir Christopher is now consigning to the dustbin.
Back in the 1970’s the veteran Labour MP and anti-monarchist Willie Hamilton worked out that by voluntarily standing down and not contesting his Scottish seat he would miss out on the severance payout. He looked up one of the safest Tory seats in the UK, South Hams in Devon, and stood against the Tory MP there to make sure he had contested an election, gone down fighting, and could still get the extra payout that entitled him to.
No doubt Sir Christopher has made sure there are no such loopholes in his report.
- Get new posts from Gary Gibbon’s blog emailed to you. Sign up here for free (link takes you to Google’s Feedburner service).
Commentsoldest first
Have had a bit of a conversation about Freemasons on the Conservative Facebook page. Consequence, I’m not now minded to vote for either of the big two. I’m completely turned off the pair of them at the moment…
Are MPs going to declare membership of the Freemasons as well as other business interests…?
“That doesn’t seem like much of a saving, stripping 12 MPs of the allowance, given that one of the tasks for the committee was meant to be cutting the overall costs of MPs’ expenses.”
Another very important aspect is that the public stop feeling the MPs are “ripping us off”. That MPs start to live in the real world where 1hr commuting after very long hours is not uncommon in the private sector. MPs seem to be going there kicking and screaming – which is just making it even clearer to us taxpayers how they are totally out of touch with what happens in business and ust makes the public even more negative about their attitude.
Thing they cannot appreciate is that they are spending our money. every pound they spend we have to earn for them. thus when they waste it, make their private fortunes from it, etc., show that they are unprepared to do less than is common in the private sector (for lower payment) it just makes us begrudge the money they do take even more.
MPs are very very lucky. They’re lucky that I’m not the one sorting this ‘Gentlemens Club’ corrupt system of greed. I wouldn’t pussy-foot around with these scum. My ethos/bedrock would quite simply be: If you enter politics, you do so for altruistic intentions to better all in society, equally 100%. You don’t collude with wealthy scum nor favouritise your friends/relatives or, line your future finacial prospects in any way. You act always as standard bearers for truth and morality’.
I am also turned off the big two, but can Nick Clegg do it?
Much political philosophy is grounded on altruism but unfortunately pragmatism has overtaken and so the ethic of control continues in different guises.
But who do we vote for? who do we trust?
I keep watching behaviour of the parties in chamber and to all intents and purpose most seem to be sensible and sincere.
So my tact becomes .. make myself more informed to understand more fully appreciate the intricacies of day to day politics.. it’s not working though
My recommendations would be:
1. A maximum of 2 terms of office for any M.P.
2. No 2nd homes allowance – members should live in their constituency.
3. Taxpayer to only fund standard class travel for MP’s & Civil Servants.
4. When staying in London, MP’s to stay in approved hotels or B & B – there’s a perfectly adequate Premier Inn across the Thames from Parliament.
5. All expense claims to be fully supported by receipts and to be in line with Civil Service guidelines.
6. No outside jobs whilst serving as an M.P.
7. All expenses related activities by Parliamentarians, since 2001, to be investigated with particular attention paid to potential; fraud or tax avoidance.
8. Where receipts have been shredded or otherwise disposed the relevant person should be barred from holding any representative office within the UK or EU.
9. All vacancies in MP’s offices to be open to public application.
To me, it’s all about integrity and maintaining the fiduciary duty of care on behalf of the taxpayer.
Steve an excellent set of suggestions.I disagree with a couple.No.1 It serves no useful purpose to restrict the length of time a member can serve and could mean losing some excellent members.
No.8 If any receiptd have been shredded for the last 7 years they should become taxable/refundable expenses as with normal citizens , though not prevent a meperson from being an MP
I would add that business hours for the commons should be 9-5 as in similar outside jobs(see councils and civil service)
All MPs should live in their constituencies and those that have to travel too far and wishing to stay in london be accomodated as you suggest.
Their argument that they wish to be with their families doesnt wash.
Finally if MPS believe it is too far too travel to London then move Parliament to Birmingham where it would be central
How about this – don’t change the rules a jot (so much hypocritical moral diatribe is becoming unbearable),simply post regularly what expenses have been claimed.Now that the Telegraph has unleashed an army of expense spotters,any MP spivvy or dumb enough to persist with their slimy indulgences would be instantly castigated (although he/she would in all likelihood find reward in one of those dreadful reality shows if they showed consistent abusive flair !) In fact,on consideration,enough of them are low enough to try this tactic to get on a reality show.I see I’m going to rethink this line of thought-ah well !
Leave a comment
* Required field.