TOO MUCH MOANING...

News that the Committee on Members Expenses has recommended that MPs should scrutinise their own expenses should come as no surprise. Some MPs have called for the reinstatement of the much discredited Fees' Office which was deeply involved in the revelations in 2009. If these moaning MP's get their way, then we could be one small step away from returning to the old discredited expenses system, which turned the House of Commons into an old fashioned sleazy gentleman's club, and claims for duck houses and moat cleaning would not be far away. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) established in 2010, has made sue that MPs have to account for every penny of taxpayer–funded expenditure.

Since then MPs have been moaning that the system is overly bureaucratic not to mention that some MP's object to having to account for every penny of taxpayer–funded expenditure. The Committee on Members Expenses has called for the Ipsa to be stripped of responsibility for administering expenses payments by April 2012. The Committee (chaired by Conservative MP Adam Afriyie) has accused Ipsa of damaging democracy and called for it to be stripped of key responsibilities. They want Ipsa to simply regulate the system, with a department created within the Commons to control payments - this would effectively re-establishing the old Fees Office.

Oddly enough, I suspect that most members of the public have little or no problem with MPs being required to account for their expense claims in public. The Daily Telegraph, which broke the scandal of MP's expense claims has noted that a recent survey conducted for Ipsa by YouGov for Ipsa suggests strong public opposition to a system of allowances for MPs - 69% believe MPs should continue to make claims for costs incurred and those claims should continue to be published. It is quite amazing at how rapidly out of touched some 'elected' can become once they become ensconced in the Westminster Village.

POST WESTMINSTER IMPRESSIONS

The views of the citizens should be regularly sought and heeded, rather than regularly avoided and ignored which sadly may have been the lasting impression gained by observing some of our sitting MP's on the stump during the last Westminster General election. The icing on the cake was Gordon Brown's televised mutterings following a clash with a potential Labour voter up north. The end result was being particularity grim up north for Gordon thanks to the presence of a live microphone - the rest as they say, along with his premiership was history.

Now just over four months or so down the line from Polling day, and after the dust has begun to settle I am still left with the impression that rather than being a historic election it was more of an odd one. This impression has been reinforced by the fact that a significant number of our Parliamentary representatives quite openly and quite deeply resented having to account for how they had fleeced the system, for some years, to line their pockets at our expense.

This impression has been deepened by the fact that so few of our formerly elected representatives who were unluckily enough to get caught with their hands in the till, so to speak, have finally ended up before the bench or the beak (or will at least do so shortly). I suspect that all of this could be said to leave any impartial observer of our questionable democracy wondering about the effectiveness (or not) of the system of checks (rather than cheques) and balances in place to monitor our elected representatives even after the expenses scandal.

It is worth remembering that The Times (back on the 25th September 2009) revealed that 28 prospective Conservative candidates who had a reasonably good chances of becoming Tory MPs were working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests. Over a quarter of them had got their jobs after being selected to fight parliamentary seats.

A number of them were duly forced to put up their hands to admit that they had set up meetings for clients with Conservative Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. Others said that they provided advice on the party’s direction and some admitted to lobbying Tory Frontbenchers on behalf of clients. So much for a brave new sleaze free new Westminster world, I wonder how many of them got elected?

The then leader of the opposition, David Cameron (now Con Dem PM) found himself in a potentially difficult situation with at least one fifth of his 150 parliamentary candidates who are likely to get elected working or had worked in the highly lucrative field of public affairs or communications. The Times at the time noted that only 7 Labour and 3 Lib Dem parliamentary candidates (with a chance of being elected) had jobs in public relations or communications.

The real question you have to ask, and it is one that everyone should be asking is with regard to Westminster and every other elected body is how much has really changed?

UPDATE: As for lobby see the Guido Fawkes blog...

THE FANTASTIC DR FOX

Oops - even as David ('Call me Dave') Cameron considers tightening up on the rules to prevent former ministers using their accumulated knowledge to make a financial killing in private business once out of office, the Times (9th February 2010) has revealed that his own Shadow Defence Minister, (Dr) Liam Fox, has received and accepted a donation of £50,000 (on the 26th January 2010) from a venture capitalist who bought a company that supplies military equipment, last week.

In his defence, if you will pardon the pun, the Shadow Defence Minister has stated that his private office has been supported for some five years by this venture capitalist – so far donations to the Conservative Party from the same source have reached a total of £125,000. Dr Fox as recorded in the Register of Members Interests stated that the donation as accepted “in my capacity as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence”.

Now while it is a recognised fact that the Conservatives are very much into tradition, well there is sadly a tradition of people using their acquired knowledge from alleged public service to enrich themselves and people buying influence in the corridors of power are as old as the hills, but that does not make it acceptable.And last time the Tories tried it, it ended in tears, prison sentences and the surgical removal of duly inserted swords of truth...

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

Here we go again - collective parliamentary noses in the trough. The Westminster Parliament's website has published hundreds of thousands of pages of new claims from 2008-09 totalling more than £10 million. It may come as little surprise to more cynical observers that many soon to be retiring MPs have continued to squeeze the system despite pretty vocal public displeasure at the widespread abuse of the second-home allowance.

The cream of the current crop (so far) appears to be one Quentin Davies, the Labour MP for Grantham & Stamford, who slipped in an invoice in February for repairs to a bell tower and roof at Frampton Hall, his castle / mansion in Lincolnshire. The defence minister, who previously defected from the Tories (in 2007), was only reimbursed for 25% of his claim after it was ruled that he had exceeded the £24,006 annual maximum.

The Times points out that his claim would have exceeded the average pay of an army private, which is £20,449.

Some three months later (according to the Times) he then wrote to the authorities claiming that he had never intended to use public money to maintain the bell tower. Oddly enough this letter was sent some ten days after newspapers began to print (leaked) details of expenses.

The hopefully soon to be former MP was quoted as saying that it was "unfortunate" that a single invoice was issued for repairs to both his roof, which he regarded as a legitimate claim, and the bell tower, which he now says was not.

The Times reveals that claims, for April 2008 to June 2009, showed some 60 MPs had claimed the annual maximum of £24,006, including the Shadow Chancellor (George Osborne), whose submitted claims accidentally exceeded the upper limit, with the average MPs claim under the second-home allowance was £18,270.58.

Roll on Poling Day...

LOSING THE PLOT!

Now there is losing the plot and there is losing the plot!

There is disgraced Conservative MP, David Wilshire, who has compared the treatment of MP's over their expense claims to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. Mr Wilshire, the man who resigned after having to repay more than £100,000 in expenses to his own company, went on to suggest that the "witch hunt" against MPs "will undermine democracy" - clearly he has lost the plot as well as his seat!

And there is Harriet Harman's who's reassurance to worried MP's that any proposed reforms of the MPs' system of expenses will probably be watered down before they are implemented - clearly she has lost the plot - the loss of the seat may come later!

Now with Sir Christopher Kelly's report, which is expected to recommend draconian curbs on allowances and a ban on employing relatives, pending and it is worth noting that the Kelly recommendations will be only one of several submissions to the new independent parliamentary standards watchdog.

Digging ever, deeper, Ms Harman, the Leader of the Commons, when asked whether the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) could reject Sir Christopher's proposals, Ms Harman, the Leader of the Commons, said: "It is entirely a matter for them, but they will, I'm sure, want to draw on his important work. It is a matter for them to decide, not for Sir Christopher Kelly." That's all very reassuring, but the question is reassuring for who? - that minority of MP's who milked the system to line their pockets or the rest of us who paid for it.

Now by way of quiet comparison, in Wales, a system for expenses for Welsh Assembly Members has come into force, specifically designed to prevent any future abuses. The changes include the abolition of flat rate allowances and in future all claims will have to be backed up receipts. Well done the National Assembly - maybe Westminster should look to Wales for a practical and workable way of putting elected members expenses into the public domain.

However, Conservative AM's have said that they will not support the idea of an independent board to set AM's pay and allowances. Obviously there would not be enough of a change of slipping through receipts for a large comfy sofa or big TV on expenses then! Same old Tories...