Peter Kenyon

Finally, a proposal to deal with property spivs moonlighting as MPs

Hats off to Sir Ian Kennedy for putting forward a proposal to deal with the property spivs moonlighting as MPs. Sir Ian is head of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

According to the BBC report:

MPs should not keep profits made on the sale of taxpayer-funded second homes, says Parliament's new expenses chief. Sir Ian Kennedy told the Times profits should be "surrendered" - but it was up to HM Revenue and Customs to manage it. He also said the tax authorities should decide how far back to go when calculating profits.

I was worried this issue had been lost sight of completely as set out here.

Expenses 3 - still listed as Labour by House of Commons

I was out when news broke of the whip being withdrawn from three now former-Labour MPs facing criminal charges relating to their parliamentary expenses. I had queried on this blog why this hadn't happened immediately after the Crown Prosecution Service announced its intention to summons them. So I suppose the announcement constitutes a result for me, rather than Conservative Dave 'the dictator' Cameron.

What a cheek.

For the avoidance of doubt, I hope that the House of Commons Information Office will remove them from the list of Labour MPs here asap.

MPs expenses: is there any way out of the moral maze?

Skimming through the Legg Report, three issues come to mind:

1. no consideration of property speculation, rental income or any other such abuse arising from tax-payer funded second homes

2. how many MPs have repaid more than even Sir Thomas Legg required

3. how will the electorate know which sitting candidate in the forthcoming General Election has behaved scrupulously throughout, resisting the temptations of a virtual free-for-all under the former Parliamentary Allowances system.

The .pdf version I opened was unsearchable, so extracting data will be labourious to say the least. Back in May 2009, the Labour Party National Executive Committee considered issues arising from the scandal and established an Endorsements Panel which picked off a handful of back-benchers and banned them from standing in the General Election, including the hapless Dr Ian Gibson. 

What lingers in my mind is a sense of doubt about whether every candidate standing for Labour in the GE will be able to attest in the court of public opinion to have upheld the highest standards of probity in public life. Our electoral chances must be improved if we can attest to the integrity of every candidate, and resist the temptation to make excuses for sitting members out of a sense of misguided loyalty.

MPs' second homes on the taxpayer to be banned - report

According to the BBC, Sir Christopher Kelly, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, is to recommend that MPs should no longer be entitled to buy second homes at the taxpayers' expense. This if confirmed will be an important step in reshaping relationships between our elected representatives and the public. I blogged about this in May here. I'm convinced the job of restoring public trust in our MPs extends to our pollitical parties as well. In that regard the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party (of which I am a member) has still failed to account for how it deselected Ian Gibson, former MP for Norwich North. I was reminded of that by comrades in South West Norfolk on Saturday. As I'm composing BBC North West is reporting a revolt in Ashton in Makerfield against a decision by the NEC to select the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the 2010 General Election from an All-Women Short list. All of which points to a lively NEC meeting on 17 November. 

Conflicts of loyalty?: the Salford case study

On Thursday it is reported the Right Honourable Hazel Blears MP former secretary of state for Communities and Local Government will face a motion of no-confidence at her Constituency Labour Party in Salford. This latest report in the Manchester Evening News states that she will win. Much more is at stake, I suspect, than local, tribal sentiment.

The outcome will be seismic whether she wins, loses or the debate is adjourned. The Labour Party's contribution to cleaning up British politics is in the spotlight. As a member of the Party's National Executive Committee, I wrote to the General Secretary expressing concern about the ramifications, in particular, for members of government arising from the NEC's unanimous decision on 19 May about how it would deal with the impact on them of the MPs' Parliamentary Allowances scandal. The contents of my letter were published on Labour's Membersnet. I have not had a reply as yet. In short, I thought that the Labour Party NEC Endorsements Panel could not consider any case concerning a member of the government until after the expected Cabinet reshuffle. Whatever it is, the NEC is not a politburo, and could not been seen to be dictating to the Prime Minister whom s/he should or shouldn't have in her/his government. That was over a week ago. Since when there has been an eerie silence.

Party members have been left with the uncomfortable knowledge that one backbencher, Dr Ian Gibson, has controversially been banned from standing as a Labour Party candidate at the next election, prompting his immediate resignation from the House of Commons and forcing a by-election. By all accounts if it had been left to his CLP, he might have got their backing. In the meantime, it appears that anyone in government who is believed to have questions to answer remains untouched by the powers that be, and in Blears' case the matter is being left to local members.

That was not the outcome I expected when I voted for the amended resolution setting up the NEC Endorsement Panel on 19 May. Nor do I believe it was what was expected by the electorate, whose support we wish to attract.

So I await news from up north later this week with exceptionally keen interest.

Democratic reform: what about the Labour Party?

British Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just announced the formation of a National Council for Democratic Renewal in a further attempt to regain the political initiative following the MPs expenses revelations. Whilst I think that such an idea is worth floating, I worry about the process. Was this discussed inside the Labour Party either by its National Policy Forum or its National Executive Committee, or even within government, by the Cabinet?

Listening to his interview on the Today Programme, the repeated use of the first person singular, I,I,I,I........will not have gone unnoticed by the listener. Personally, I don't see how this initiative can have any credibility with the electorate without a parallel process inside the Labour Party about its own democracy.

Labour Party statement: NEC endorsements panel

This is the statement being reported by broadcast media following the first meeting of the NEC endorsement panel.

 A Labour Party spokesperson said:

"The Labour Party's special NEC  endorsements panel had its first meeting today to consider all cases currently referred to it and whether to recommend rescinding endorsements to stand for election as Labour Party candidates. The panel is currently in the process of gathering evidence from all parties concerned in these cases and the Labour Party will make a further announcement when it has come to its conclusions. All members of the panel agreed on the need for rapid and urgent action to reassure the public and Labour Party members, but the panel is also clear that all its investigations must be conducted in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with Labour Party rules. "

In the light of this, I hope that is the last we have heard of the 'Star Chamber' description. Though it raises other questions by omission, as set out on my Labour MemberNet blog, Saving the Labour Party.

Labour's future: power, party or pals?

It's tough at the top. This is an occasion when the prospect of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party retaining power has to be weighed on the opposite side of the scales to tribalism, ideology and pals.

Reviewing the events of Gordon Brown's premiership, there are his expressions of vision. And there are the realities. Extending and Renewing party democracy announced the day he was named Leader. But up pops the machine and forces through more central control. The Governance of Britain promised constitutional reform. But up popped the naysays to restrain progress. So today with Cameron out on the front foot again,  could sleaze finally liberate Gordon?  Will that moral compass point in the right direction and courage prevail? Is it the end for MPs that resisted reform of expenses, New Labour mantras and his 'pals' in government that have disgraced the Labour Party with their wanton greed?

Rewards for 'retiring' MPs - case for immediate review?

While MPs Parliamentary allowances are being radically reformed, their pension arrangements and allowances for stepping down from Parliament are coming under increased scrutiny.
Today's Mirror newspaper claims an exclusive here exposing £100K payouts. Given the depth of public anger about MPs' remuneration, shouldn't their pension and 'retirement' perks also be put on hold pending changes to avoid rewards for failure?

Labour government reshuffle - what's the holdup?

Scanning news headlines the media consensus presumes a reshuffle is on the way after the 4 June elections. I am struggling to find any conceivable reason for Gordon Brown to wait a day longer. He is the Prime Minister. He decides who is in and who is out. Unlike the Labour Party National Executive Committee, he doesn't have to wait for due process to decide who is a fit and proper person to serve in Her Majesty's Government. Or does he?

He has succeeded in driving through reform of MPs expenses, secured cross-party support from a review of previous claims and taken control of the allowances system out of the hands of MPs themselves. The Labour Party NEC has agreed measures to establish a new code of ethics for Labour Party candidates, discipline offenders and ensure working with its local members that its candidates at the next election are fit and proper persons. A major reshuffle/purge ahead of the European Parliamentary elections is needed. Though care will have to be taken to ensure Cabinet ministers with a case to answer are out, and everyone retained and promoted is beyond reproach.

As a member of Labour's NEC, I have received a lot of angry emails and comments on my blogs about apparent anomalies in the treatment of different ministers, as well as between ministers and backbenchers. Some of this upset can be accounted for by shock about what has been going on in Westminster. Some can't, perceptions of scapegoating can't be easily brushed aside.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone who thinks they know of strong evidence of an anomaly, which I could add to a case I have already referred to the powers that be. Once reviewed and explained we need to be open about the reasons why apparently similar cases are being dealt with differently. Otherwise, there is no way in which party members' confidence in the NEC and the Party Leader/PM is going to be restored, let alone that of the electorate in Labour's competence to govern.

As for a 'national plan' aired here. Oh, deary me. I'm very fearful of any plan telling us all what's good for us, without any debate. But, if the national plan was to open debate on fair pay, taxation and ending poverty, the proper role of the private sector, together with constitutional reform, that would be a different matter. It might save the Labour Party.