MP's Expenses Some of the Excuses

There is some moaning and whining from Members of Parliament over having to pay back some of their expenses. While all three of the main party leaders are asking their members to pay up. Here are some of the most ridiculous soundbites I have gathered this morning.

Colin Challen, Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell is quoted in the Times as saying:

"If Parliament can sweep away with the principle of justice for MPs, then the people should watch out — this Parliament could do away with the principles of justice in other areas too."

Whoops rather poor choice of words looking at some of the civil liberties his Labour party have taken away from the rest of us in the last 12 years.

While retrospective caps of £2000 a year on cleaning and £1000 a year on gardening have been imposed one Tory pointed out that a similar cap was not imposed on mortgage interest and actually points out his own party's millionaire leaders Cameron and Osborne who have claimed up to £20,000.

"Cameron and Osborne have managed to get very large mortgages subsidised under this system and there are no questions about that."

One Scottish MP countered this limited cap saying:

"Some MPs have good reason to feel aggrieved. It also seems a bit unfair that Labour MPs who pay their cleaners a fair wage are more likely to get caught out, while Tory millionaires are getting away with charging taxpayers for their mammoth mortgages on their country estates."

However, the Sir Thomas Legg's audit has already been shown to be prone to throwing up some errors, the Times lists the four following examples

Bob Laxton, Labour MP for Derby North, questioned Sir Thomas’s competence. "A colleague was told she had to pay £5,000 back. When they checked the receipt, she was told it was a mistake. She is planning to make an official complaint because it is total incompetence."

Julia Goldsworthy, Lib Dem MP for Falmouth and Camborne, said that she had been asked to clarify mortgage statements for 2004-2005 — when she had not even been elected.

Matthew Taylor, her party colleague for Truro and St Austell, said: "I have been asked to repay £180 for a BT bill claimed twice which I had already informed the fees office about. There seems to be quite a lot of errors."

Norman Baker, Lib Dem MP for Lewes, said that he had been asked for more information on mortgage interest payments. "The reason he’s got no information is I don’t have a mortgage. It strikes me this is a bit of a rush job. You wonder whether you have trust in the system."

There also appears to be a number of the letters seeking clarification over documentation that the fees office has lost. This is an office in a building that often requests companies to hold financial records for seven years has lost its own expenses in the space of five!

The problem is that there are some genuine grievances about some of the contents of some of the letters, but with those who have been caught and asked to pay moaning the others who are genuinely seeking to rectify errors are going to get tarred with the same brush. That appears to be the shame in what some of the loudest moaners are doing. Somehow our law makers threaten court action which should be the last port of call before trying consultation, clarification and mediation first.

Epic Fail by Carter-Ruck #carterruck #trafigura

As I reported earlier Carter-Ruck had an injunction to prevent this question:

61 N Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Which was already in the public domain being reported in the Guardian. Under a barrage of Tweets using the #trafigura and #carterruck hashtags the lawyers have backed down. Not before many more thousands of people learn just what Trafigura were trying to hid. The D-Notice gagging the Guardian was lifted before the paper could get this raised in court.

The fight is not over though Lib Dem MPs were seeking an emergency debate of the Bill of Rights sovereignty over the reporting of matters in the Houses of Parliament, this I feel should still go ahead. You can sign the petition on the Number 10 Website here.

Transcripts From This Morning's Phone Log #Trafigura #CarterRuck

Carter-Ruck receptionist: (Anxious) Err....Hello Carter-Ruck partners of law.....may I help you?

Lord Alan Sugar: Yes it is Sir Alan, I mean Lord Sugar here, may I speak to Peter please, or someone else in charge.

Receptionist: (Relieved) Certainly Sir Alan. Hello Mr Carter-Ruck I have Lord Sugar on line one.

Mr Carter-Ruck: That's a relief you can put him through. Alan!

Lord Sugar: Peter. Look as you know I'm not one to beat about the bush.

Mr Carter-Ruck: Yes, of course Alan.

Lord Sugar: So to keep it sweet and to the point. I'm being retained by Trafigura. (there is a gasp on the line) And you're fired.

[Call Terminates]

Morning Quickie on the Threatened Tube Strikes

It's been a long time since my daily commute was hit by a Tube strike having not lived in London since the mid 90s. However, I understand that the Underground Drivers are considering striking over the 1.5% pay rise that they have been offered. They are saying it is not in keeping with those in similar jobs.

Maybe they should look over their shoulder at those they are transporting, not so much the bankers, but the shop workers, administrators, call centre workers, whoever. Ask themselves how many of them, often on lower salary than the train drivers, even managed to get as big a raise as 1.5% last year and are expecting the same again next.

In Response to Calum Cashley

Much as I love the image of Nats texting Calum Cashley with breaking news from my blog, I wonder if the last time I saw Tavish reach in his pocket to read a message it was because somebody, or my RSS fed had alerted his Blackberry, I feel his latest post needs a more thorough response than I could provide in his comments.

The crux of the matter is that the conversation that is being started under the watchful eye and listening ear of Ross Finnie is to kick off in a members only session at conference. He's highlighted the fact that I blogged during conference about how open discussion of policy takes place on the floor of our conferences and not behind closed doors and says it is hypocritical to do otherwise on this issue.

For starters this discussion is not debating a substantive policy motion it is a review of the stance that the party holds. Such a review could well have been carried out by policy committee, or any of the local parties in closed session and then brought to conference, but instead of taking a small sounding of opinion it is looking at the broad church of opinion. By doing so forthright views will no doubt be expressed, something that even if it was a policy debate wouldn't be that toned down, but within the confines of fellow party members. Yes it may prove less embarrassing to senior members of the party than certain interventions during the Bournemouth debate but that is not the reason for it being a closed session. It is a party business session at this stage, along with party governance and finances these sessions are members only sessions. Hardly any dark sorcery, although such comments from SNP sources does not really help those of us who want to back a referendum on the issue of independence get that message across to our party colleagues.

Indeed the fact that Ross is leading this reappraisal is good it is actually the fulfilment of one of his leadership election pledges to look into what the party thinking was on this issue. I genuinely do not know how this conversation within the Scottish Lib Dems will turn out. There are points that I have made in public on this blog in the past that I will re-emphasise, there are others that I have only raised in private with fellow party members, I think such a session and process is the ideal environment for others to do likewise. After all not every party member is going to be so bold as to say in a blog post or from the conference platform that the leader may be wrong, if outsiders then pick it up as a split rather than a disagreement of ideas.

We shall have to see just what comes out of the process which Tavish himself called for.

Now I wonder how long before SNP or Lib Dem's have their small boxes in their pockets vibrate and light up with a strange ringing noise after I press publish?

PS In response to Calum Cashley's comment that I will soon be voting SNP, I'd love to be able to do so in Westminster and Holyrood election under a fair STV system. I'm glad to see he is wanting the same, I'll admit it's unlikely that they will get my first preference they are far too illiberal on a number of issues and far to centrist for my liking. But it is hardly breaking news or worth holding his breathe for, indeed I have already done the deed in 2007, just didn't vote for them with my first preference. I do believe that part of my vote will have counted for a SNP councillor mind.

When Parliamentary Reporting is Gagged in the 21st Century #Trafigura #CarterRuck #fail

People don't normally pay much attention to written questions in the House of Commons to the Secretary of State for Justice. But when one has been fielded, after 60 others, in this the first week of the new session and the Guardian is gagged from reporting that text people are likely to sit up and notice.

Bloggers from across the political blogosphere have rallied to the issue and the Twitterverse has lit up to many uses of the #Trafigura and #CarterRuck hashtags. So suddenly instead of solicitors Carter-Ruck trying to bury the fact that their client's actions are being questioned has actually highlighted the news to masses of people who would probably never have heard or read about it normally.

As many before me have pointed out the question from Paul Farrelly MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme is being gagged despite the 1688 Bill of Rights. One which provisions is "Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".

So obviously the lawyers are merely trying in vain to prevent the reporting of events in the House of Commons, thing is they cannot impeach the answer being published in Hansard. I expect that to be the most widely reported, or directed to answer in the history of the Parliamentary record being online.

And You Thought Lunatics Couldn't Stand

In the old language of the bill that determines who can stand for Westminster along with undischarged bankrupts and peers of the realm the other grouping is lunatics. Well with the letters from Sir Thomas Legg's independent audit about to picked up in MPs inboxes it looks like the later may indeed have sneaked in.

You'd have thought over a summer where they could meet their constituents and actually get a fell for the anger on the street about MP's expenses that some lessons may have been learned. One of those is that they would look at an independent review and take it at face value. The major parties have all agreed to do that with the Sir Christopher Kelly review of the expenses procedures, but why is this audit different. One source said:

"Nobody really minds paying back small amounts. What we object to is being named and shamed in this process when the rules change retrospectively."

The fact that the Times could only attribute the above to a source and not a named MP shows the depth of the issue. The whole issue has always been one of transparency. If the expenses in the first place had been more transparent we would never have got into such a mess. I'm not saying there still mighted have been some fiddling, but it would have been easier to pick up, and earlier.

What we may have today is hundreds of lunatics signing their own P45 from the Palace if they don't accept that what they claimed wasn't wholly and exclusively for business use when they claimed for it, and are now being asked to pay it back.