Peter Kenyon

Labour leadership candidates - watch those expenses

I am not sure of the wisdom of early declarations by Labour Leadership wannabes before the timetable or rules for the contest have been agreed by Labour's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC). The last Leader/Deputy elections were mired with issues about campaign donations as candidates amassed five and six-figure sums to woo Labour Party members.

According to report at the time the Deputy Leadership candidates war chests were as little as £4,000 declared by Hilary Benn to an eye-watering £180,000-£200,000 by Peter Hain. A similarly large sum was raised by the only valid candidate for the Leadership - Gordon Brown.

In the wake of the anonymous donations scandal to the Labour Party itself which swept away General Secretary Peter Watt in controversial crcumstances, now interim Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman was forced to pay back £5,000 given to her by a property developer who has secretly bankrolled Labour to the tune of £600,000. Peter Hain was obliged to resign as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to defend himself in the face of a police inquiry into his campaign donations triggered by the Electoral Commission. And he did so successfully, but it took a long time.

So the best advice to all concerned would be proceed with caution, and making sure you keep very good records of both donations and expenses.

MPs expenses: only the political parties can deal with abuse now

Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations for the future and those of Sir Thomas Legg about the past are not dealing with the here and now and a public perception that some MPs have been on the make. Worse, Kelly's recommendations according to this BBC summary leave the door open to:

1. resettlement allowances until the General Election after next,

2. existing mortgage expenses claims for the duration after the next General Election, and

3. ditto for the current employment of family members.

Given the level of public concern, I don't see how Labour's National Executive Committee can stand idly by and let sitting MPs who are believed to have abused the current system continue to stand without allowing CLPs the opportunity to question, and if necessary, start a reselection process.

An austerity Parliament: Labour's opportunity

Baying for blood might increase newspaper circulation. It is not going to save parliamentary democracy. Calls for Speaker Martin's head are an inglorious distraction from thinking though who and what must follow the rotten, corrupt state of our party politics.

Rank-and-file members of political parties are virtually the only people who remain truly honorable in our party political democracy. It is they who should have a dominant say in how events unfold. The industrial wing of the Labour  Party - the trade unions will hopeful take the opportunity to remind both government ministers and PLP representatives of how many of their members are at risk of summary dismissal for making an error on an expenses claim, let alone an extravagant or fraudulent one.

Weeding out the wannabees in Labour's ranks is the task of the moment. But not on the back of Torygraph reports. I'm currently getting stick from Labour Party members for putting too much faith in the review of MPs expenses back five-years to be overseen (I understand) by the National Audit Office. The Labour Party (whether it's Head Office, regional offices or CLPs) does not have the resources to weed out the possible frauds and even the property scams. Extravagant claims are probably easier to spot. I first called for NEC action involving CLPs last Sunday here. The 'within the rules' defence was shot long before this scandal broke by the Green Book guide to parliamentary allowances, for anyone who had bothered to read it. Ministers who persist in using that defence deserve summary dismissal from government. Failure to repay must occasion deselection, with the worst offenders banned from restanding at all. I have admiration for the voluntary repayers where there is no question of misleading the Fees Office. But it should be left to CLPs to decide in the first instance.

However, that only deals with the past. What about the future? Is the public really going to stomach second-home purchases at the tax-payers expenses? That's a subject about which the Tories are currently unremarkably quiet. Oh yes, extravagant claims must be repaid, but building a property portfolio from the public purse, oh, no - wholly and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties. Does the Labour Party want to continue to field candidates for Parliament that have Establishment aspirations? This touches on levels of pay, as well as expectations about London accommodation for out-of-London MPs. I suggested a lodging allowance linked to voting records here. Then there are questions about the size of Parliament itself and the Executive (or government). Personally, I would not follow the Conservative herd demanding a cull - fewer MPs in the next Parliament. Instead there should be a major reduction in members of the second chamber. A constitutional reform package ending prime ministerial patronage, slashing the size of the Executive and minsters pay and perks, abolition of the House of Lords, the creation of an-elected slimmed down second chamber, recall rights to enable citizens to demand by-elections to hold elected members of both chambers to account, reduced roles for the Whips would all seem essential to improve accountability and reduce costs. This is a national debate Labour should be leading. 

Austerity for the nation demands an austerity Parliament and executive starting now. If that means some MPs have to take out new mortgages to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains - tough. At least they will learn first hand another practical lesson about what the credit crunch means for working people when your income is frozen, cut, or gone.

Ex-Labour Party unelected chair: exs repaid last year

Every Labour Party supporter (past and present) should read this story on the Daily Telegraph website.
I don't forgive Ian McCartney, MP for Makerfield for ever accepting the title of Labour Party chair - a post which does not exist except by diktat of the Leader of the Labour Party. But assuming the DT story is accurate, McCartney worked out for himself following a decision of the House of Commons in 2008 to tighten the rules that he should pay back expenses claimed two years previous to furnish and equip his London home.

According to the DT report, he wrote to the Fees Office:

“In the light of reforms debated and implemented by a resolution of the House on July 3, 2008 I have been looking at my claims to ensure that I am satisfied in their accuracy. In respect of this claim it is accurate and allowable and was deemed as such by your department at the time.

“I feel very strongly that the money should be returned to ensure consistency and to assist the House in its ability to retain public confidence.

“After due consideration I believe the proper option is to meet the full costs of decoration, furnishings and soft furnishings by way of an immediate repayment to the ACA account.” .....

......Mr McCartney confirmed last night that he repaid the full amount of £14,914.10 on August 4, 2008 by way of a cheque.

If the Labour Party needs one of its own to assist the independent audit, then maybe McCartney is a suitably qualified candidate. Are there any other Labour MPs who followed their consciences without having to be reminded by the media? We should be told.

 

Labour Party: lowering MPs expenses - lodgings

Divining how the constitutional crisis now engulfing the Mother of Parliaments is going to come to an end, Pat (my wife) and I were pondering earlier today how to move forward. We are both passionate believers in the role of political parties in our parliamentary democracy. Having heard Clare Short's lamentable excuses on the Today Programme this morning, I suggested a lodging, rather than a second home, allowance.

Why should an MP have an expectation of a second home funded by the taxpayer? Pat instantly expanded on how that might help keep MPs focussed on their constituencies, as well as lower the costs of Parliamentary Allowances. With the reforms to Parliamentary hours brought in by Labour, most days that Parliament sits are within commuting distance for lots of MPs not just those representing Greater London constituencies. A lodging allowance might also reduce the risk of extra-marital affairs, encouraging those MPs with families to get home as quickly and often as possible. And so on.

We then drifted on to how MPs might clock in and out to be eligible for such an allowance. I recalled a presentation at the last Labour Party NEC meeting from the chief whip, Nick Brown, about which my lips were sealed. At least that was until the telephone rang a moment ago. It was the political editor of a daily newspaper. Apparently, No 10 is doing some briefing which has a strong link to a very interesting idea about MPs actually doing the job we elected them to do - namely, vote. One of the problems facing the Labour Whips' Office is (I'm led to understand)  'unauthorised absence', that is Labour MPs, who are meant to be in the House of Commons to vote, just not turning up. Here we are not talking about the rebels. Apparently these MPs don't even bother to tell the Whips' Office that they are not going to be in the House at the appointed hour for a division.

So instead of a daily allowance for signing in (widely condemned by the media and opposition MPs as bringing the Brussels gravy train to Westminster), maybe there is a case for a lodging allowance linked to Hansard's record of voting in divisions - 100% allowance for 100% voting record, tapered for unauthorised absence to zero, depending on the number of divisions on the sitting day in question. Or maybe deductions for unauthorised absences?

Just another thought for Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life to ponder.

MPs expenses: Labour Party grassroots versus headlines

The political editor of a national Sunday newspaper has just telephoned me to ask about my blog posting on the role of conscience in the MPs expenses affair, and how I see the Labour Party following the issues through.

From reactions here, on MembersNet, personal messages and media coverage, both national and local, one obvious conclusion can be drawn. Labour cannot rely on headlines to get its messages across. A handful of respondents have been vitriolic about a right-wing media plot. I'm clear this issue has been way beyond that for years. Labour legislated for Freedom of Information. What is being set out for all the world to see is a direct result of that Labour law. So whether MPs were acting honorably or not, their actions were bound to be subject to intense public scrutiny eventually, and that moment has arrived.

As a member on Labour's NEC representing constituencies, I think my job now is to enable constituency labour parties and their members to be able to review the public standing of their sitting MP and take appropriate action. It remains the case that in every constituency Labour fields a candidate for the next General Election who is seen to be beyond reproach.

So yesterday's announcement that the Labour government is looking for a retrospective review and independent audit of all MPs expenses claims going back to to 2004 is to be welcomed. This should establish a benchmark against which to judge our elected representatives seeking re-election. In the meantime, every Labour MP should be examining their conscience and asking how does this look to my local constituency both members, supporters and voters - and acting accordingly.

Hazel Blears has finally got the message, though I am a bit puzzled about her arithmetic (If the net capital gain on her primary residence (not) was £45K, then CGT payable at 40% should be £20K, rather than £13K on the cheque waved in front of the TV cameras last night - but I'm not an accountant.) But the stories about Margaret Moran and Ronnie Campbell, and now, I understand, Harry Cohen repaying expenses have not been given the prominensce they deserve.

UPDATE 1045 Phil Hope joins Labour roll of remorse here.

This is where the NEC has a role to play. At our meeting next week (assuming it takes place), I think we should be setting out guidance to CLPs so that they can decide for themselves whether sitting MPs who are seeking reselection are fit and proper persons to continue to seek to represent them or not, and act accordingly. All this is without prejudice to any inquiries that might be undertaken by the police or the tax authories. But we can not wait for 'innocent until proven guilty' defences. We have elections to fight and win. This internal Party review needs to be completed in time for the 2009 Annual Conference in late September, enabling any CLP that considers it essential to reselect its PPC to get on as quickly as possible.

Repayment: an honorable litmus test for Labour MPs

An honorable start has been made by a small number of backbench Parliamentary Labour Party members to help restore trust with their constituents. These include:

Margaret Moran MP for Luton South is reported to have agreed to repay in full money claimed on her Southampton home, some 100 miles from her constituency.

The Press Association reported that said she was repaying the full amount claimed for the house in Southampton that she shares with her partner as a result of "constituents' anger at the current fees regime".

Her husband works in the south coast port.

Meanwhile in the North, the Newcastle Journal reports:

Blyth Valley MP Ronnie Campbell apologised to his constituents for using allowances to buy furniture for a second home in London, which he moved into around five years ago.

He declared: “I am very sorry, I shouldn’t have claimed for it.”

Neither featured yesterday in the PoliticsHome 100 'Sleaze Meter' poll.

The reputational bar was raised for the 'flippers' - MPs making capital gains from exploiting the current  Parliamentary Allowances regime for second homes - by  Labour MP John Mann, who has spearheaded calls for expenses to be reformed. He has been widely reported warning in a thinly disguised reference to Labour cabinet minister, the right honourable Hazel Blears MP:

'I tell you what: any Labour MP who isn't paying capital gains tax should not be a Labour MP.

Tax avoidance in the Labour Party is unacceptable.' 

Personally, I am not impressed by Conservative Party leader, David Cameron's bravado in reportedly threatening to withdraw the whip if excessive claims are not repaid.

I think the first test should, rightly, be individual conscience. That will help both the electorate and local party activists decide what sort of person they are either voting or campaigning for as their representative in Parliament. Action to deal with those sitting Labour MPs who fail it should follow swiftly, irrespective of whether they are seeking re-election. It is less than 3-1/2 weeks until the Euro-elections.

That is why I think Moran and Campbell deserve a modicum of respect. The real hero of the whole sorry tale is Moran's constituency neighbour Luton North MP and Campaign Group stalwart, Kelvin Hopkins - his home is in Luton and he commutes to London daily to undertake his parliamentary duties.

UPDATE 1400 For a peek at the Opposition see what ConservativeHome addicts are saying here. Note the centrist personalised headline. I wonder if we, in the Labour Party, can be more democratic?

'Within the rules' defence scuppered

Hat tip to Jim Dodd on Labourhome for reading the Green Book. I strongly recommend this to every media reporter, commentator, news editor and programme producer. Perhaps they could reinterview every politician who has used this defence by providing readers, listeners and viewers with the context under which Parliamentary expenses can be claimed under the existing rules. As a Labour Party activist I would appreciate more than just a sorry on their behalf from the Prime Minister.

Labour Party needs to act over its MPs' expenses - poll

Among the issues arising from revelations about MPs' expenses, is what should the Labour Party be doing about its own elected representatives currently in Parliament and those Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) who hope to represent it in future?

I have been fulsome, some might say slavish, in my unprompted praise for our Leader, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his controversial decision to force changes to MPs' expenses entitlements onto the agenda. Given the constitutional niceties, he is free to take direct action against any minister deemed to have been 'milking the system' to 'feather their own nest'. It is contemptible that Labour MPs, especially cabinet minister(s) are retreating behind the excuse that 'it was within the rules'. That is no different than saying 'I was only obeying orders' - indefensible.

What I want to explore are the other layers of governance and accountability within the Labour Party itself. What are the officers of CLPs in, for example, Salford considering in the light of revelations about their MP, Hazel Blears? For those of us, Labour Party members,  who do go out on the doorsteps, canvassing and delivering leaflets, this is very much our business. Why should any of us volunteer our time to enable someone on the make to get into Parliament?

And in its turn, what is the Labour Party's National Executive Committee going to do? It has extensive powers to tackle members who allegedly bring the Party into 'disrepute'. When we meet on 19 May, I don't think we can let the matter pass. I just hope I am not alone in thinking we have to act, and act now before the June elections. Speed is needed to progress, however painfully, the rebuilding of public trust in parliamentary democracy, in general, and the Labour Party in particular.

UPDATE 1310 - For Labour Party members who would prefer to comment in the relative privacy of Membersnet go here.

UPDATE 1345 - For anyone wanting to vote on this issue, Mike Ion has set up a poll on Labourhome here.

Rediscovering winning ways - Parliament

How can anyone take the Houses of Parliament seriously when leaders of all parties have been feathering their own nests with such abandon?

Is this now the time to revisit the idea of annual Parliamentary elections, the only main demand of the 19th century Chartist movement not to be achieved?