Pensions motion

After the hoo-ha over MPs’ expenses politicians made a big deal of the fact that the issue of remuneration had been pushed out to an independent body.

So it wasn’t without a touch of irony when the Government, out of political expediency, asked Parliament to reject a pay-rise proposed by that independent body earlier this year.

Having got a taste for meddling, the Government has tabled a rather contradictory motion on MPs’ pensions today.

It starts saying that the Commons, “reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House”.

The motion notes that the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission has recommended a rise and then, without shame, says that the Commons should, “[invite] IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes”.

Should it? If these things are to be done independently surely Commons shouldn’t be taking any view at all, something which the amendment proposed by MPs Christopher Chope and Bill Esterson among others appears to grasp.

Expenses probe

Here is the list of 20 MPs that have been investigated for their expenses including Alan Johnson, click to go to the IPSA compliance website for full details:

Anderson, David
Barker, Gregory
Blackman, Bob
Coffey, Ann
Fallon, Michael
Halfon, Robert
Henderson, Gordon
Hendrick, Mark
Johnson, Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
McGovern, Jim
Mearns, Ian
Michael, Alun
Robertson, Angus
Smith, Henry
Swales, Ian
Twigg, Stephen
Williams, Hywell

Labour blocks David Laws' return...

I was sitting in Portcullis House yesterday when David Laws moseyed past and it got me wondering why he had not begun his comeback yet.

Both Nick Clegg and David Cameron did at one point suggest they wanted him back as soon as possible, but it seems their efforts are being frustrated.

In May Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyons found that Laws had committed six breaches of expenses rules, in particular claiming for rent paid to his landlord, who also happened to be his partner.

The Commissioner suspended Laws from the Commons for seven days, ordered him to apologise and pay back some money.

It looked like that would rule out an early return to the Cabinet but it hasn’t stopped the Government whips trying to get him started elsewhere.

In particular, Lobbydog has learnt, they have been trying to get him on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Financial Services Bill.

The problem is that Labour is having none of it and has constantly objected to his inclusion, given the expenses misdemeanour hanging over his head.

The committee was meant to be set up before the summer recess, but things have dragged on so much over the issue that it now looks like it won’t be established till September – possibly delaying the overall progress of the Bill.

Victory on expenses

Last year Lobbydog attempted to find out which MPs had taken their resettlement grants on leaving the Commons at the election, and which had not.

The reasoning behind the request was that there were some MPs who held very well paid private sector jobs and had no need for a hefty taxpayer hand-out to “adjust to non parliamentary life” – the rather spurious reason for the grant.

But the Commons Authorities, despite having just been through the trauma of the expenses scandal, refused to reveal the information claiming it would breach data protection law.

We complained to the Information Commissioner and after the watchdog’s intervention the Commons have now backed down.

They are in the process of informing all former MPs who took the grant that their names will be released in a list to come some time in early April.

It’s good the information is finally coming, but sad we had to drag it out of the Commons given everything that’s happened.

Read the full story here.

The die is cast...

I finally submitted my complaint to the Information Commissioner today over the House of Commons’ refusal to release details of which MPs have drawn resettlement grants and which have not.

It took me a couple of weeks because I wanted to read all the case law behind the issue to make sure it was arguable before I got on my high horse.

I’ve been on a mission to read through the original MPs’ expenses FOI battle, the Information Commissioner’s and Information Tribunal’s rulings and the High Court’s judgement.

There’s a whole bunch of other case law that’s relevant too – supporting the argument for disclosure.

What I’ve found most irritating is that the Commons is using exactly the same argument for withholding resettlement grant information, as they did when they were withholding information on MPs expenses and allowances all those months ago.

Saying “they just don’t get it” has become a terrible cliché, but what else is there?

They were forced to release the information then, and I’m hoping they will be now.

Resettlement grants battle

It looks like Lobbydog will be forced to go to the Information Commissioner to get a few facts that should be in the public domain.

Before I nipped off on summer hols I put a Freedom of Information request in with the Commons Authorities to find out which MPs had drawn their resettlement grants and which had not.

At first request I was refused outright, with the authorities ludicrously claiming that to reveal the information would breach data protection law.

This blog demanded a review of the decision and has managed to glean a little more information – 200 MPs have drawn their grants, that’s of 230 odd MPs who left Parliament.

While there are those of you out there who might think the grant – paid to help MPs “adjust to non parliamentary life” – is shameful full stop, I’d suggest there are some instances in which it is more shameful than others.

Some MPs, like Patricia Hewitt for example, walked straight into a very well paid job (or jobs in Hewitt’s case) and have absolutely no need for a payment which stretches in to the tens of thousands of pounds to ‘tide them over’.

However the authorities have still refused to give me a list of those who have drawn the grant and those who have not.

Given that it concerns public money, there is no reason why the authorities should refuse to release information about who has drawn grants, particularly as they have already put out a lot of information on other allowances claimed.

Information Commissioner here I come.

Second home claims

Just a quick update on the most recent expenses claims publication.

I’ve looked through about 39 MPs so far and claims are far lower than in previous periods.

That’s expected because these claims relate to the six months after the scandal broke – meaning many MPs were shocked into putting the brakes on their spending.

But eight of those MPs have actually claimed absolutely nothing – that is £0 for the cost of a second home from July to December 2009.

Which begs the question; if they could claim £0 for that six month period why were they claiming money before?

That full list of bar bills....

In case you're interested, here is that full list of MPs' bar bills that went unpaid for months. It was published by the Commons Authorities last night.

MPs' Personal Catering Credit Accounts as at 1 September 2009
Sums outstanding for more than 90 days and up to 6 Months as At 1 September 2009

Abbott Diane 154.50 Paid
Amess David 219.67 Paid
Anderson Janet 764.45 Paid
Barker Gregory 310.00 Paid
Bryant Chris 141.20 Paid
Buck Karen 60.44 Paid
Cable Vincent 70.40 Paid
Cameron David 12.80 Paid
Carmichael Alistair 720.15 Paid
Carswell Douglas 258.23 Paid
Cash William 3.65 Paid
Cawsey Ian 103.13 Paid
Chope Christopher 286.18 Paid
Cormack Patrick 422.50 Paid
Crabb Stephen 125.92 Paid
Denham John 37.75 Paid
Dorries Nadine 263.68 Paid
Ellwood Tobias 6.20 Paid
Gillan Cheryl 92.25 Paid
Goodman Helen 225.85 Paid
Grayling Chris 195.05 Paid
Greening Justine 93.88 Paid
Hamilton Fabian 154.50 Paid
Hammond Stephen 35.10 Paid
Harman Harriet 96.15 Paid
Harris Evan 155.50 Paid
Harris Tom 107.25 Paid
Hendrick Mark 71.77 Paid
Hendry Charles 354.93 Paid
Hosie Stewart 49.25 Paid
Hutton John 32.30 Paid
Irranca-Davies Huw 19.50 Paid
Jones Lynne 2.00 Paid
Joyce Eric 125.95 Paid
Keeble Sally 31.70 Paid
Keen Ann 259.40 Paid
Keen Alan 112.40 Paid
Keetch Paul 570.40 Paid
Khan Sadiq 35.65 Paid
Knight Jim 275.23 Paid
Knight Greg 362.91 Paid
Lammy David 319.97 Paid
Leigh Edward 156.53 Paid
Linton Martin 66.75 Paid
Mactaggart Fiona 10.30 Paid
Main Anne 31.88 Paid
McCarthy Kerry 76.55 Paid
McDonagh Siobhain 71.05 Paid
McIsaac Shona 39.55 Paid
McNulty Tony 120.00 Paid
Moran Margaret 2.55 Paid
Mountford Kali 107.00 Paid
Mudie George 7.95 Paid
Robertson Laurence 413.15 Paid
Ryan Joan 62.05 Paid
Salter Martin 184.25 Paid
Shaw Jonathan 413.30 Paid
Sheerman Barry 434.25 Paid
Smith Geraldine 48.05 Paid
Soames Nicholas 10.50 Paid
Tami Mark 19.50 Paid
Vaz Keith 1,729.61 Paid
Wallace Ben 157.00 Paid
Ward Claire 78.05 Paid
Waterson Nigel 18.95 Paid
Watson Tom 496.20 Paid
Younger Ross Richard 19.50 Paid

Sums outstanding for more than 6 Months as At 1 September 2009

Abbott Diane 1.60 Paid
Anderson Janet 364.30 Paid
Cable Vincent 321.55 Paid
Carmichael Alistair 2,483.62 Paid
Carswell Douglas 1,855.46 Paid
Cawsey Ian 2,669.46 Paid
Chope Christopher 283.85 Paid
Cormack Patrick 672.53 Paid
Denham John 2.98 Paid
Dorries Nadine 1,200.69 Paid
Goodman Helen 535.65 Paid
Greening Justine 98.78 Paid
Hall Patrick 689.40 Paid
Harman Harriet 1,035.45 Paid
Harris Evan 6.45 Paid
Heath David 99.75 Paid
Hendrick Mark 193.87 Paid
Hendry Charles 735.15 Paid
Hosie Stewart 400.40 Paid
Hughes Simon 82.55 Paid
Hutton John 93.30 Paid
Irranca-Davies Huw 44.05 Paid
James Sian 302.95 Paid
Joyce Eric 889.30 Paid
Keeble Sally 64.40 Paid
Keen Ann 8.40 Paid
Keetch Paul 3,929.95 Paid
Khan Sadiq 19.20 Paid
Knight Jim 582.30 Paid
Knight Greg 286.56 Paid
Lammy David 733.83 Paid
Linton Martin 1,102.05 Paid
Mahmood Khalid 8,200.60 Paid
Main Anne 8.47 Paid
McCarthy Kerry 121.15 Paid
McDonagh Siobhain 598.00 Paid
McDonnell John 15.55 Paid
McNulty Tony 3.65 Paid
Mountford Kali 1,430.35 Paid
Murphy Jim 260.25 Paid
Ryan Joan 178.35 Paid
Sheerman Barry 1,808.50 Paid
Simpson David 12.90 Paid
Smith Geraldine 128.85 Paid
Tami Mark 763.20 Paid
Wallace Ben 1,381.50 Paid
Watson Tom 843.07 Paid

Legg and Kelly

There is the predictable hubbub about who Sir Thomas Legg’s report will finger when it comes out on Thursday.

But there should also be another interesting confrontation that day in the Thatcher Room over at Portcullis House.

There the Public Administration Committee will take evidence on standards from that other recent nemesis of MPs, Sir Christopher Kelly.

Sir Christopher’s proposed changes to the expenses system are in the process of being implemented (watered down).

View it live here.

A layer of faff

First they said they would implement Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations. Then they said they would pass them to Sir Ian Kennedy to implement. Now Sir Ian is passing them to, er, us.

Earlier I toddled over to pick up a copy of Sir Ian Kennedy’s expenses public consultation document.

Sir Ian is asking “the people” about which of Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommended changes to the MPs’ expenses system should be brought in.

First of all let me say this – if ever there was a pointless layer of faff, this consultation is it. Can somebody not just make a decision?

Secondly Sir Ian is actually asking people to comment on his own version of Kelly’s proposals – some of which he has watered down.

These include allowing MPs in the home-counties to claim travel expenses – under Kelly’s plan they would have been excluded.

Furthermore, Kennedy says Parliament should decide whether MPs have to repay capital gains arising from taxpayer-funded homes (i.e. let’s allow the Turkeys to vote for Christmas). Kelly said the decision should be made by a regulator.

This whole thing is totally unnecessary.

When is a shed, not a shed?

My mouse-scrolling finger is feeling a little bit worn this morning.

I spent hours yesterday sifting through a mass of MPs’ expenses so sorry for the lack of blogage.

Anyway, a couple of neat items popped up. A cabin with a glazed veranda – costing the taxpayer £1,000 – which an MP managed to squeeze past officials by saying it was replacing a dilapidated old shed.

It would have had to replace something because MPs weren’t allowed to “upgrade” their garden under rules at the time, only replace things.

And then there was the £50 for dog minding – part of an invoice charged to another member by a decorator who would only take on the job if someone was paid to watch his pooch while he did it.

This is the last time there’ll be such a load of expenses released at once as they’ll now be done on a quarterly basis. That will hopefully start to normalise the whole expenses issue.

You can’t escape the feeling that a reason the story still has so much mileage – a part from the fact that documents were released and the Legg Review is pending – is that it still feels novel to get the insight into someone’s private life that the receipts give.

Kelly has a dig

Drowning in expenses stories, but just a quickie. Respect to Sir Christopher Kelly for twice outing political game playing:

1. He said the leaks of his report were incredibly frustrating and that they had not come from his committee. In fact, he added, they had started to appear within hours of him pre-briefing party leaders on what his report would say. Tut tut.

2. Harriet Harman, he pointed out, had told his committee that MPs should not be allowed to employ spouses, but then speaking in the House reversed her view. It’s leaders that are meant to tell people what they want to hear, Hattie. You’re not one yet.

Wriggle it, and not just a little bit...

There was a distinct wriggling feeling about the answers relating to Kelly that were given in the Lobby this morning.

The discussion was all about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) – the body that will put in place the Kelly review, or so we thought.

Hacks were pressing PM’s mouthpiece Simon Lewis on three issues:

1) Who will get to appoint IPSA?

2) What powers will it have to reject parts of Kelly?

3) When will it report?

The answer to the first question was that it will be the Members Estimate Committee (Harman, Bercow and co), in some sort of guise.

Lewis repeated that the important thing was that appointments were made in a “fair and open” way, correcting my assumption that the most important thing was that it was independent (a fair assumption, given the I in IPSA).

While highly unsatisfactory in its substance, the answer was actually the most satisfactory in terms of clarity.

Lewis responded to the second question on ‘powers to reject’ saying that it was “for IPSA” to take Kelly’s report and implement it as it saw fit within its remit.

It felt like an answer that was preparing the ground for at least some of Kelly to be ditched.

The answer to question three was a straight forward “I don’t know”, which applied even when Lewis was pressed to say whether IPSA would report before the election.

If, as some are starting to suspect, Kelly’s review is kicked into the long grass or watered down beyond recognition, I’ve no doubt the Government will pay the price at the ballot box.

Bad books

What is becoming increasingly clear – if it wasn’t clear enough already – are the lax systems and incompetence of the Fees Office.

Many MPs I’ve spoken to have been asked for documents by Sir Thomas Legg which they say they provided when they submitted claims. The Fees Office seems to have lost a lot of paper.

In another case an MP has been asked to pay £1,300 after Sir Thomas found the Fees Office mistakenly paid her twice for a mortgage claim.

They did pay her twice, she notified them immediately at the time her records show, and they took the money back straight away.

But it hasn’t registered for some reason and now the Fees Office are actually fighting her case with Sir Thomas, admitting the whole thing is their balls up, to prevent her from having to pay again.

Vaz and Duncan find common ground

Keith Vaz and Alan Duncan would probably argue they have little in common. But now they have one thing.

Former hack and anti-sleaze man Martin Bell is hunting for candidates to stand against the MPs in 2010.

Both MPs did not come out well of the expenses scandal.

Mr Bell, who stood against Neil Hamilton and became Independent MP for Tatton, told the Leicester Mercury: "I think it could work, we just need to find the right candidates."

He has already got two local people lined up apparently.

Shadow attorney general to question expense demands

The new shadow attorney general Edward Garnier MP has also been asked to repay over £3,700 that he claimed.

Garnier said he only ever made one claim for gardening, £1,920 in March 2006, and it was for several years’ worth of stuff.

But because he submitted the claim at one time it exceeded Sir Thomas’ £1,000 annual limit by £920.

The rest of the demanded payback, some £2,796, was because the amount his documentation showed he was claiming for rent was more than his tenancy agreement suggested he needed to.

The shadow attorney general said this was because he had classified all monthly claims – for food, bills etc. – as “rent” on the form. If he’d filled out the form properly he would not have been penalised, he said.

He’s challenging Sir Thomas’ provisional findings, but has said he’ll pay if the former civil servant doesn’t change his mind.

Labour MP: "You'll have to take me to court..."

Lobbydog was speaking to Alan Simpson last night who has been told to pay back £500 for a cleaning bill.

He said Sir Thomas Legg would have to take him to court before he handed the money back, and repeated the warning on Radio 4 this morning.

The problem has arisen because in one year Simpson claimed £2,500 for cleaning, which is £500 above Sir Thomas’ retrospective limit.

The Labour MP, who is standing down at the next election, told me: “There is something dangerous about someone coming in and retrospectively moving the goal posts.

“It’s like taking the film from a speed camera on a road where the speed limit is 30mph, before changing the speed limit to 20mph and then fining everyone on the film for driving too fast.”

Sir Thomas also found that Simpson had been over paid for a water bill – after he claimed through 12 months of the year, when the utility company actually only charged in eight months.

He said: “Sir Thomas’ review is a helpful procedure, I’m glad it was carried out. The water bill was a technical error and I’m happy to repay that – it comes to about £200.

“But I think it’s wrong of him to actually change the allowance limit for things retrospectively. So in regards to the £500 repayment for cleaning he has recommended, I’ll say that he needs to seek the authority of the courts.”

One MP is happy today

Believe it or not there is one MP who was positively beaming after getting his letter from Sir Thomas Legg today.

Tory Alan Duncan was told that he needed only to pay back £218 for his gardening expenses – the member for Melton has already paid back £4,700.

Theoretically he could re-claim £4,482 – though he won’t of course, because it would be political suicide.

Duncan went on to get sacked from his shadow cabinet position after getting caught on a secret film saying MPs were being treated “like sh*t” over expenses.

By the sounds of it many other MPs who received letters today would now agree with him.

Morning rant over expenses

MPs started to get back to me overnight to let me know whether Sir Thomas Legg wants them to repay any money.

The first to get back have all had a “clean bill of health” as one Labour MP put it.

But there is some seething resentment over how this whole thing has been dealt with and part of that anger is directed at the press.

Yesterday afternoon when I walked through Members’ Lobby, where MPs’ pigeon-holes are, there were a bunch of hacks hanging around waiting for someone to turn up and start looking through their mail – it all had a feeling of ‘vultures before the feeding frenzy’.

The thing is, the press are a constant. That is not to say they are always right or dignified, but they will always act the way they do because they are competing with one another for stories.

They certainly cannot be expected to act as a single, reserved group. The authorities, however, could have minimised damage by being open, and doing so through a coherent media strategy.

They should have given notice to MPs that they would receive an email today at, say, 11am, and then at 1pm put out a general release with a list saying who has to pay what to every single news outlet under the sun.

No-one has an exclusive, hacks concentrate on the big stories ie Brown and Cameron, and no-one has to scrabble around hounding MPs all day, so they would be happy too – it’s the plaster rule, rip it off quickly for short sharp pain.

Instead they handled it in the worst possible way yesterday – telling people that the letters will be out sometime on Monday and then leaving it until late at night to really put them out, giving the media a day to scrabble around, speculate and build up the tension. Rant over.

HOW MUCH?!

Downing Street confirmed that Gordon Brown has received a letter about his expenses claims from Sir Thomas Legg.

Sir Thomas said the Prime Minister should pay back over £12,400 in claims made on his constituency and London home.

The Prime Minister's spokesman said Brown had already made clear he would repay any money requested of him.

Clegg was first out of the blocks announcing he'd pay back over £900 – which makes Brown's claims look humungous.

What does David Cameron have to tell us about his mortgage payments?