Lord Kinnock is asking for some information...

Written Answers - Department for Exiting the European Union: (24 Jul 2017)

'Lord Kinnock: Her Majesty's Government whether House of Lords ministers
in the Department for Exiting the European Union will be provided with
all cabinet papers that are relevant to their role and necessary for the
proper discharge of their duties.'

A fair question?

Here's a couple of fair questions for Lord Kinnock:

1. How much money have you earned from the EU in each of the past 22 years? 
2. How much pension per year will you be entitled to in the future and from when will that pension be paid?

Why are these people so cross with Nigel Lawson? – Telegraph Blogs

It's important to know what's behind some of the attacks on Lord Lawson's call for the UK to leave the EU.
This Telegraph piece makes some good points, but don't forget the EU pensions and requirements... See previous blogposts.

Remember that EU pensions are paid on the understanding that the EU can remove this pension, if in the view of the Commission or the Luxembourg Court, they "fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities".

Also remember that (per Guido):

'The European Court of Justice has ruled that retired Eurocrats including the yacht-loving Lord Mandelson will be allowed to dodge tax on a huge scale. Brussels pensions are exempt from national taxes, meaning that the likes of Mandelson and Neil Kinnock only have to cough up 8% on their five-figure taxpayer-funded EU income. Am guessing the Euro-Judges will benefit from their ruling too. The decision to permit an official tax avoidance scheme for former EU officials comes as Brussels cracks down on tax dodging across the continent.'

'Show us the money', Vera!

Anna Raccoon has a fascinating story about Vera Baird, one of Labour's minor ministers and troughers.

Here's an extract but do read the whole article as there are other interesting revelations:

'The house that Vera Baird put on the market for £315,000 last year after she had finished ‘winding up’ her constituents in sunny Redcar, has finally sold for £265,000.

This is the house that ‘we’ mostly paid for, so that Vera could continue the good works of the saintly Mo Mowlem on behalf of the benighted inhabitants of Redcar. We paid for the mortgage interest, the new boiler, the roof, the floors, the windows and furnished it for her.

Fortunately for the scrupulously honest Vera, she was kicked out of parliament the day before the change in MPs expenses rules which would have forced her to give the profit she made on this house back to the taxpayers.  Still, last year Vera did say that she would be acting ‘morally and properly’ when the property was sold.

I am sure she has done so, who could imagine anything less of her? She has, she says, ‘made a donation to charity’. We do not know which charity, nor how much the donation was for...'

The whole concept of MPs receiving money from the public purse to pay a mortgage on a property and then keeping the profits from the sale of that property stinks to high heaven. I would have thought that any MP who, perfectly legally, took advantage of this arrangement would feel honour bound (as a current or former 'honourable' or 'right honourable' member) to voluntarily repay such profits. Somehow I think that I shouldn't hold my breath!

''Here we are, the Jews again.''

The Telegraph report that the unpleasant Gerald Kaufman has been at it again.

'Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP, has apologised after exclaiming ''here we are, the Jews again'' when a fellow Labour MP stood up in the House of Commons.

The Manchester Gorton MP made the remark from his seat when Louise Ellman made an intervention during a debate on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.

It is understood that Mrs Ellman, who represents Liverpool Riverside, was ''very upset'' by the remarks and made a formal complaint to the Labour Party. '

The apology was not exactly fulsome and in fact was the sort of mealy mouthed one that we have come to expect from Labour MPs over the years.

Gerald Kaufman is not only rather unpleasant he also pushed the expenses system quite hard. In case you had forgotten here is The Telegraph article about his expenses, here's a few extracts (my emphasis):

'Sir Gerald Kaufman charged the taxpayer £1,851 for a rug he imported from a New York antiques centre and tried to claim £8,865 for a television.

...

On one occasion he asked a civil servant “why are you querying these expenses?” and on another threatened to make a complaint unless a dispute was settled by noon on the day in question. In one document, an official in the fees office noted that invoices Sir Gerald had submitted took him to “within 6p” of his annual limit. He also claimed £1,262 for a gas bill that was £1,055 in credit.

Between 2001 and 2008 the Manchester Gorton MP, one of the Labour party’s longest-serving members, claimed a total of £115,109 in additional costs allowances on his London flat, which he owns outright. In June 2006, he submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen Beovision 40in LCD television. The maximum amount MPs are allowed to claim for TVs is £750.

...

In March 2007 Sir Gerald submitted a claim for £1,461.83 for a “second-hand rug replacing 24-year-old carpet”, with an additional £389.91 for “customs duty on rug”, which was paid. The receipt showed that Sir Gerald bought the rug from the Showplace Antique Centre on West 25th Street in Manhattan for $2,750. The Green Book strictly forbids “antique, luxury or premium grade” furnishings.


...

Sir Gerald was also challenged over regular claims for “odd jobs” which he submitted without receipts at a rate of £245 every month — £5 below the then limit for unreceipted expenses. He replied: “Why are you querying these expenses?”

On May 18, a senior official in the fees office noted details of another conversation about the kitchen and bathroom, saying: “MP believes that I have seen a detailed breakdown of the £12,416.51 claim he has submitted [for that financial year]… MP is becoming agitated and will be making an official complaint against me, if this matter is not resolved by 12 noon today.” When detailed invoices were submitted, they included £575 for undertile heating in the shower room and £2,695 for Bosch and Miele kitchen appliances. Sir Gerald was asked to attend a meeting with officials on the matter and the fees office eventually agreed to pay him £15,329 of the £28,834. Sir Gerald accepted, saying that he wanted to “draw a line under the issue”.

In June last year Sir Gerald submitted a £1,262 claim for his gas bill, covering the period March 2006 to May 2008. The fees office pointed out that his gas account was £1,055.60 in credit, and only agreed to pay £122.46.

A note in the file on July 10, 2008 quotes Sir Gerald as saying: “I received a letter from [official] saying not pay as is credit. I paid £1,252 THIS year so want reimbursing!!!”

The fees office wrote to him on July 14 to say: “You might wish to ask British Gas to repay you the credit.”

Sir Gerald’s claims between 2004 and June 2008 also included £19,200 for food — close to the maximum — and £4,692 for cleaning.

Last night Sir Gerald offered to repay the money for the rug and admitted that his claim for the £8,000 television was “a bit daft”.

He said that his flat had been in need of complete refurbishment because he had “neglected” it over the years and he had overclaimed for the gas bill because he “misunderstood” the invoice.

He said that his odd jobs bill was actually more than £245 a month, so he had claimed close to the limit. His food claim was “appropriate” because his job meant he often had to “spend a lot of money” eating out, he added. '

Unpleasant and a trougher to boot.

So what?

Reading through some old articles I found this Telegraph article about Labour's Baroness Uddin. The bits that struck me were first that:

'New evidence which came to light during the formal parliamentary sleaze inquiry into Labour’s Baroness Uddin is being passed to the Metropolitan Police, who may now consider reviving the criminal case, which collapsed amid recrimination earlier this year.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish Nationalist MP whose complaint to police sparked the original criminal inquiry, confirmed that he would write to the Met asking police to reopen the case in the light of this new evidence.

...

'She was found to have “misled” the subcommittee after suggesting that she regularly stayed overnight at the Kent flat – which she described as a “bolt hole”.
However, police obtained statements from 12 neighbours who all said that she had never been seen there and that they referred to the property as the “empty flat”.
Water bills showed close to zero usage, leading the water company to replace Lady Uddin’s meter, assuming it was broken because levels were so low.
At one point, some shirts blew off a washing line on to the balcony of the flat, and were left to gather mould because no one removed them.
Neighbours said that they could see that there was no furniture in the flat until press reports about her case, and no signs of occupancy other than a single unshaded light bulb, which was set on a timer switch.
Lady Uddin had asked the letting company to forward all correspondence to her London home.
The subcommittee report said: “We find that Lady Uddin deliberately misled us as to the frequency of her stays in Maidstone'

And second that

'Lady Uddin has said that she does not have the money to repay the £125,000 she illegitimately claimed.'

I trust that the CPS will take on board the new evidence regarding Baroness Uddin's non-use of her Maidstone flat and prosecute her accordingly.

I further trust that in reply to the Baroness's squeals that she doesn't have the money, the authorities say "So What?" and ask her to pay in large instalments or even use an 'attachment of earnings order'. If proven, why should Baroness Uddin get away with her illegal claims?

Welcome to the real world 'luv'

The Guardian reports on the new regime at Westminster and includes this whinge from an unnamed Labour MP complaining that she will be able to claim for a taxi home from work after 11pm:

'What happens on a January night in London? I suppose I will have to take the tube, then a bus and then a long walk home. That is not safe.'

Welcome to the real world 'luv'. Mrs NotaSheep often works late and unless it is a particularly late finish she has to walk to the station near her office, take a 40 minute tube train journey and then a mile or so walk home (unless I go to pick her up). It's called the real world, it's where we all have worked for years and where MPs are now being forced to work. Maybe MPs will now realise that the Country is a dangerous place to live in and so actually do something to make it a safer place, rather than just living off the taxpayer and not experiencing the (often dangerous) lives that the electorate live.

At least some little troughing piggies will have to wait before 'earning' the 'big bucks'

The way that so many ex-Labour ministers left government and went straight into highly paid consultancy or directorships was quite sickening; you know the people of whom I speak. So I was interested to learn that the new version of the Ministerial Code (published yesterday at David Cameron's behest) bars ex-Ministers from such roles for two years. So the likes of Jacqui Smith will be unable to cash in on her contacts and may have to instead get a normal job, if she is able to find one that is within the compass of her limited talents. It's a shame that so many Labour ex-ministers have already cashed in on their contacts but 'baby steps' are better than none.

Nick Cleg gand his expenses - not whiter than white

The return of Elizabeth Filkin

Elizabeth Filkin was the the former Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards who found there were certain members of the Government, including Keith Vaz and Peter Mandelson, whose conduct fell below the standards to which Labour said it was committed. Her contract was not renewed. The Telegraph report that:

'The intriguing prospect (of Elizabeth Filkin returning to a compliance role) is raised by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s disclosure that chief executive, Andrew McDonald, has been lunching with Mrs Filkin.... the authority will appoint a “compliance officer” after the election, responsible for probing errant MPs and dishing out punishments.

Drafting in Mrs Filkin - the nemesis of the pre-expenses scandal Commons - could be seen as a strong statement of intent.'

Justice would be done, now we just need the EU to find an investigatory role for Marta Andreasen!

I thought they were probably Labour MPs

The BBC article about MPs (and former MPs) having to repay expenses is missing a few details. The first two MPs named are described as "Tory Liam Fox... and Labour's Shahid Malik". But after that the MPs named seem to be missing their political party affiliations; my suspicions were aroused so I had to do some fact-checking:

"Other MPs who had appeals rejected were Roger Casale, Chris Pond and Betty Williams.

Six MPs had their appeals upheld in full and a further four - John Lyons, Denis MacShane, Alan Simpson and Derek Wyatt - had their sums requested reduced by sums ranging from £121 to £7,866. "

Let's see that's MPs whose appeals were rejected in full or part:
Roger Casale - former Labour MP
Chris Pond - former Labour MP
Betty Williams - current Labour MP
John Lyons - former Labour MP
Denis MacShane - current Labour Minister
Alan Simpson - current Labour MP
Derek Wyatt - current Labour MP

No I can't see why the BBC would drop the listing of party affiliations, can you?

I'm sorry but I don't understand

Could someone please explain how Baroness Uddin was not prosecuted because it could not be proved that she had not visited her 'main' home once a month yet Lord Paul is not prosecuted despite admitting that he had never spent a single night at his 'main' home?

The Telegraph's latest report on Lord Paul confuses me. First we are told that:

"Lord Paul, a major party donor, was told by Scotland Yard last week that he will not face charges over his expenses claims. "

Second we are told that:

"The peer has admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property. "

How does that work> Earlier this week I reported that:

"Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted as... threshold that peers must visit their "main home" at least once a month."

It's all in the definition

Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted as the CPS has apparently decided that expenses rules gave prosecutors a "very real difficulty" when it came to deciding whether to prosecute and that the definition of that residence in the Lords expenses scheme would always have been "critical to any possible criminal proceedings against Baroness Uddin".

So with the Clerk of Parliaments Michael Pownall announcing last November that ultimately "it is up to members to designate an address as their main residence as they see fit" and setting a threshold that peers must visit their "main home" at least once a month. It became all but impossible for the CPS to successfully prosecute Baroness Uddin.

Of course in the real world a person's "main home" would be where they lived the majority of the time, but in Labour "snouts in the trough" Britain: "it is up to members to designate an address as their main residence as they see fit".

How convenient, how cosy, how bloody ridiculous, how unlike the rules that apply to the rest of us; but we are just taxpayers not members of the Labour elite so we have no say in these matters.

An interesting FOI revelation

Paul Waugh in The Standard reveals that:

"Harriet Harman gagged the independent auditor of MPs' expenses to prevent further embarrassment over rejected claims, it emerged today.

The Commons Leader persuaded Sir Thomas Legg not to publish any references to expenses claims that were turned down by the Commons Fees Office.

Sir Thomas, whose damning report this month ordered more than 300 MPs to repay a total of £1.3 million, even wanted to publicise claims that were rejected by the discredited system of allowances.

But Freedom of Information documents show that Ms Harman, who is also Labour's deputy leader, queried whether such a move would be “appropriate” and suggested only claims that were wrongly approved should be made public.

The exchange happened when Ms Harman met Sir Thomas for a private meeting last July soon after he was appointed by Gordon Brown to probe the expenses scandal."

Read the whole piece and wonder at the audacity and lack of respect for the public that is so often exhibited by this Labour government. Then revel in the final line:

"Ms Harman's spokesman said: “She fully supports the review of past expenses to ensure that any sums overclaimed are identified and paid back.”"

Once again a spokesman seemingly deliberately misunderstands the proble.

The new House of Lords definition of a 'main home' (update)

Further to my piece about the disgusting ruling that the House of Lords definition of a 'main home' is now one where the noble Lord spends at least one night a month during the time Parliament is sitting. I see on Letters From A Tory that Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, has commented :

"If you want to see what whitewashed ermine looks like, this is it. This ruling has more holes in it than a colander."

Excellent sound-bite...

The new House of Lords definition of a 'main home'

This is a joke, a very very bad joke.

It appears that the House of Lords Lords authorities have cleared: Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Hayworth, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker over their expenses claims. Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall, has declared that as there was no clear definition as to what constituted a main home in the current expenses scheme, he had asked a Lords committee which rules on peers' allowance to come up with some "essential criteria". This committee had decided that the minimum threshold for visits to a property designated as a "main" home for expenses purposes should be "at least once a month" when Parliament is sitting. Time spent there during recess was "also a relevant factor". So the House of Lords definition of a 'main home' is one where the 'noble Lord' spends at least one night a month during the time Parliament is sitting. So a 'main home' is one where a 'noble Lord' spends as little as 3.23% of their nights during the time Parliament is sitting.

Is this some sort of sick joke. How can a 'main home' be one where someone spends 3.23% of their nights? If a 'noble Lord' spends the remaining 30 nights in one abode elsewhere, that is now acceptable to be called a second home. As Bob "Bulldog" Briscoe would say: "This is total B.S." 'Noble Lords' can now legally claim nightly expenses even if they are not staying at the property that the claim should only arise for.


I also note per the BBC that:

"In Baroness Scotland's case, Mr Pownall said he had not considered the complaint because she was a minister "throughout the period for which we hold records and so not entitled to claim" under the reimbursement scheme."

Did I read that properly, Baroness Scotland was not entitled to claim and so her case was not considered? Does that make sense?

The BBC report continues:

"Under reforms proposed by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body the old allowances system for peers would be replaced.

It favours a £200-a-day attendance allowance for peers, who are not salaried, but says they should have to prove they have been at Parliament.

The plans were criticised by some peers who agreed to back the reforms in principle, but not the detail in a vote in December."

Peers should have to prove that they are where they say there are in order to claim expenses; how iniquitous! Does this infringe their human rights?

This man was an MP!

If Jim Devine can't stand up to the gentle enquiries of Channel 4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy then I doubt he'll look that good in court when facing a decent barrister.

Jim Devine does not seem, how can I put this, the sharpest pencil in the box. Maybe it is time for all prospective MPs to sit an IQ test or similar. The trouble with many MPs for safe seats is that their abilities are less important than their being able to wear the right coloured rosette and follow the whips instructions as to what lobby to troop into and vote.

So who was the Labour Whip who gave Jim Devine the advice? Why won't Jim Devine name him?
These are the current Government whips: Nick Brown, Tommy McAvoy, John Spellar, Helen Jones, David Watts, Frank Roy, Steve McCabe, Tony Cunningham and Bob Blizzard. Just in case it was an assistant Whip and not a Whip (and Jim Devine couldn't tell the difference) these are the Labour assistant whips: Diana Johnson, Mark Tami, Dawn Butler, John Heppell, Lynne Brown, Sharon Hodgson, Mary Creagh, David Wright and Kerry McCarthy. I believe that Jim Devine said it was a male Whip so let's start asking questions of: Nick Brown, Tommy McAvoy, John Spellar, David Watts, Frank Roy, Steve McCabe, Tony Cunningham, Bob Blizzard, Mark Tami, John Heppell and David Wright.

Maybe someone should explain to Jim Devine the difference between a budget and an expense claim.

Meanwhile I note that "Keir Simmons, ITV News' Crime Correspondent, is reporting that none of these MPs were arrested, fingerprinted or had to give DNA samples. One law for them..."


Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the video spot.

They've got a little list, they've got a little list

politics.co.uk have a list of the 135 MPs retiring at the next general election.

Quite a few little piggies included.

Another story about a senior Labour politician that the BBC have seen fit to ignore

Herald Scotland reports the fascinating news that:

"Alistair Darling has resigned from Scotland’s most prestigious legal body after it started an inquiry into his conduct surrounding his expenses as an MP, the Sunday Herald has learned.

The Chancellor ended his 25-year membership of the Faculty of Advocates a week before Christmas.

Mr Darling, a respected lawyer prior to entering politics, gave no public explanation. However, the Sunday Herald can reveal that the Chancellor’s exit followed a complaint to the Faculty by a member of the public about his House of Commons expenses for a second home."

Now I think that's an interesting story, a very interesting story and if it had concerned a senior Conservative Minister in the late 1980s it would have been a lead story on the BBC but not a word on the BBC about this labour Minister; WHY? Maybe the BBC learned that:

"Mr Darling’s spokeswoman said: “There was absolutely nothing wrong in what he did about his houses.

“The disciplinary proceedings would not have been awkward and it is ridiculous to suggest he resigned because of this.”"

and decided that was good enough for them.


Thanks to Subrosa for the spot.

Lord Taylor of Warwick

The Sunday Times reported last weekend that:

"A TORY peer has been caught using someone else’s home address to claim tens of thousands of pounds in expenses.

Lord Taylor of Warwick, a 57-year-old former barrister, told the House of Lords that his main home was a terrace house in Oxford which he neither owned nor lived in.

The property’s owner, Tristram Wyatt, a university academic, said he was unaware that his address had been used as the peer’s main home.

Wyatt’s companion is the peer’s step-nephew, Robert Taylor, who admitted to The Sunday Times that his uncle has never lived at the house. “He doesn’t live here, he hasn’t lived here,” he said.

The neighbours confirmed that only Wyatt and Robert Taylor had been resident at the property in recent years.

Taylor has lived in his family home in Ealing, west London, since 1995. By claiming his address was outside the capital he accumulated more then £70,000 in subsistence expenses between 2001 and 2007.

When confronted earlier this year, Taylor claimed he had lived at his mother’s home in the West Midlands during those years. However, this claim was false as his mother died in 2001 and her house was sold that year.

His former wife has also confirmed that he lived in London, and nowhere else, until their separation in 2003.

The disclosures will be looked at by the police team investigating peers and MPs. Taylor declined to comment last week. "

If this is true why has Lord Taylor not resigned as a peer? If he does not have the self-regard to resign, then why has David Cameron not had him thrown out of the Conservative party?

Wife-swapping at the House of Commons

Not as interesting/disgusting as it sounds but the story that MPs who are determined to get round the new rules banning family members from working for them are considering "swapping wives" with other MPs. Imagine indulging in such "swapping" and finding Pauline Prescott in your office...