Just as we politicians thought it was safe to go back in the water another swimmer falls to the Telegraph shark!
I think David Laws MP is in an impossible situation as the rules do not allow him to keep personal relationships confidential when he stays in a second home subsidised by the taxpayer. I think his resignation is only a matter of time. However, let me be very clear we should NEVER put people in a situation where they have to justify where they live, who they live with and how many days in the year they live there.
I frequently publish the evidence I have given on expenses arguing for an independent system but also arguing that defining second homes was an accident waiting to happen. So here is my latest attempt to achieve reform. The evidence is going to a number of relevant bodies including the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The core of the letter (which refers to the Lords but is relevant to the Commons) includes the following:
I think it is very important that we get this right and you will know from my speech in the House (March 22nd2010 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100322-0004.htm) that I believe we have to come up with a robust system that can stand public scrutiny but allows the House of Lords to attract members of calibre from diverse backgrounds throughout the UK.
I think one of the key issues is this vexed question of second homes. In my view it has always been an accident waiting to happen. As soon as you start trying to define a first and second home you run into contradictions which are aggravated because we do not receive a salary. It also creates a situation where a member may have to explain their personal relationships as has happened in the case of David Laws MP.
If we could agree that attendance in the House is a very important part of our legislative procedures then a simple attendance allowance would be better than a second home allowance. This avoids the problem of definition which is fraught with difficulties.
In my own case I have always made it very clear that the only reason I have a place in London is because of my work in the Lords. I do not want to live in London and would have moved permanently to the country in 2005 when I left the Commons if I hadn’t agreed to become a working Peer.
A flat rate system payable to everyone and set at a level slightly below the total recommended by the SSRB would not penalise anyone and would not increase costs. This would not put members in a position where they had to justify where they lived, who they lived with and how many days in the year they stayed there.
Finally I should make it clear that I favour extending the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to cover the House of Lords as well as the Commons. I know this is not universally popular at the moment but I think over time IPSA will build up the experience necessary to create a publically robust system that also defends the independence of Members in both Houses and ensures the House protects and enhances diversity. Currently we are in danger of creating a system where only the elderly or very wealthy will be prepared to become working Peers.
I do think David Laws is in a difficult position, probably post expenses an impossible one, though I’d be rather sad to see him go as I think him a more than usually thoughtful LD MP. As to IPSA – I think the Lords should run a mile from getting involved.
“However, let me be very clear we should NEVER put people in a situation where they have to justify where they live, who they live with and how many days in the year they live there.”
If they’re taking public money to live somewhere, they need to be able to justify it.
Means-testing for MPs I say.
Ah, blame the messenger. The villian of the piece is the Telegraph, not those on the take.
As for having the explain personal circumstances. Does the government require citizens to do this in order to receive money? The answer is yes. If you impose these rules on the citizen, then there is no problem for us to do the same with you.
As for changing the rules. If you can’t manage a simple expenses system, then you have no right to manage anything else. It just shows how incompentent the Lords and Parliament are.
Expect much more of the same. What the Telegraph shows is the extent of the fiddles and having the data in the public sector makes all the difference.
Expect even more when COINS is released the public. COINs containts all expediture by the government.
In the open, I’ll make a prediction. Link spending to companies. Link company directors to Lords and MPs. Link MPs to declarations of interest. How many are going to be caught out?
Lord Blagger
Do you think this attendance allowance should be taxed?
A flat rate system payable to everyone may not penalise anyone in the Lords, but it would penalise MPs who represent constituencies further away, while giving London MPs money they don’t need. If you said London MPs couldn’t claim it, it would instead advantage those living just outside. In fact, the same thing can apply to the Lords too, as those who have always had their homes in other parts of the country will be disadvantaged compared to those who live in London.
As for David Laws, I fail to see why wanting to keep his relationship private meant he needed to claim public money. Had he claimed no money, there would be no need for public scrutiny, and his home life would be no-one’s business. No-one would know whether he was paying rent and simply not claiming it back (reports say he’s “independently wealthy”, as is evidenced by the fact he has spare cash lying around to pay £40,000 back). No-one is compelled to claim expenses.
Well, the search for the Holy Grail continues “Trust me I’m a Politician”.
Hahaha, you do make me laugh Lord Soley. Up on your high horse, as a Lord might be seen, complaining about having to justify with evidence certain things you obviously feel should remain private. This from a Labour member whose party whilst in Government wanted us to put everything in their databases, who allowed Local Authorities to become so powerful they video and detail peoples very move.
It`s another case where you would like one law for them and another for us. Try living an everyday life and see the personal intrusions most of us put up with.
Your attempt to bring in double standards only makes you even more untrustworthy.
“we should NEVER put people in a situation where they have to justify where they live, who they live with and how many days in the year they live there.”
Does the tax man not require this information
in different ways? He may require all three at some time or other. Is Clive referring to a different breed of human being entirely?
Whether that information should be PUBLIC or not is the nub of the matter, not whether an authority should have the right to it or not.
Dear Lord Soley,
What is your opinion on MPs and possibly Lords being allocated a publically owned flat as in Sweden.
Yours,
James Walker
James Walker, I misread your post at first as, “allocated a publicly owned flat in Sweden.” I thought that would increase bills for commuting significantly – they’d better not go first class!
I think the Lords should run a mile from getting involved.
I’ll expect they will try, but it won’t be for the reasons you say. It will be because they would lose a huge sum of expenses.
Lord Blagger
Thanks for the comments – the constructive ones anyway!
Yes allowances should be taxable and I think most (not all) Peers and MP’s would now accept that.
I’m not sure about allocating housing for MP’s. I think they should be left to make their own arrangements – there was nothing inherently wrong with David Laws arrangements except that we have a rule which says you shouldn’t pay when in a relationship with another person in the house.
Lord Soley,
However the rule IS there for a very good reason. It’s (as I imagine) to avoid any suggestion or implication that the landlord and MP are colluding to raise rents artificially and skimming off the top.
Plus it avoids tabloid stories like “SNOUTS IN TROUGHS” – “MP charges the TAX PAYER for living with own wife”
In any case the antidote to this is, as always, more transparency – candidates and existing MPs put up documents clearly stating what they will claim for, and how they will do it, updating them as necessary.
Of course, you could argue parliamentarians have a right to a private life – on non-parliament matters this is indeed fine, but when you need to earn the trust of 60 million people to make laws for them, I think transparency should win out.
Do you think this attendance allowance should be taxed?