Red Box - Times Online's Westminster blog

MPs expenses revealed and not many dead

So the Commons have finally shown a bit of leg on expenses, after waiting until the last possible moment they released details of the expenses of around a dozen prominent MPs. And guess what: it's a;; fine. No screaming headlines tomorrow as far as I can tell. Amusement over Gordon's cleaning bill and Prezza's food bill and size of the Cameron/Osborne mortgage interest claims, but frankly the world hasn't stopped turning.

So why, Mr Speaker, spend tens of thousands of pounds and three years trying to fight to it?

Stephen Carter thinks Brown's speeches are "stilted" and "too cluttered"

Another week, another scoop for PR Week. But could Brown's new guru Stephen Carter have gone too far this time?

The former PR executive is reported to have made "tentative contact" with a trio of Tony Blair's speech writers -- Peter Hyman, David Bradshaw and Phil Collins (red rags to some in Team Brown) -- to see if they are interested in returning to No 10.

PR Week reports that Mr Carter had expressed concern about the way Mr Brown’s speeches were written and suggested that they are failing to resonate with the public.

The Prime Minister has increasingly been relying on his close friend Colin Currie, a doctor by trade, to draft his speeches. Currie is currently working alongside Beth Russell on a part-time basis. A senior source told the magazine:

"It has been acknowledged that the Government's messages are too cluttered and that Gordon needs to show a bit more personality, rather than the stilted language that he tends to use when he makes these speeches.'

The magazine also suggested that Mr Carter is reviewing the position of Brown's long-serving opinion pollster Deborah Mattinson, employed by Chime Communications.

Given that Mr Carter seems to be making enemies, is picking fights in PR week wise?

Why don't MPs understand it looks worse when they try and hide things?

The House of Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker, was due today to release the details of how MPs spend their £23,000 second home allowance. Their lawyer told them there were no grounds for a High Court appeal.

Instead of complying with the Freedom of Information request, affirmed by a tribunal last month, the Speaker found a new lawyer.

This new second great legal mind, perhaps tempted by the prospect of a fat great fee paid by the taxpayer, said that they could see grounds for appeal and took the case on. Quelle surprise. Now the public will foot a hefty bill, probably running into six figures, for a High Court appeal that the Speaker's original lawyer said they couldn't win.

The decision was taken after the Commission met informally this morning with 20 minutes' notice. Not everyone made it to the meeting.

There is a further twist. MPs wanted to prevent publication because it forces them to disclose their home addresses (already available on the electoral register, and asked for only because some MPs had put their holiday homes down as their "additional home"). The vast majority were not trying to stop the details of their expenses being published. Even the Commission said last week that the principle had been conceded.

However, the Commission's new lawyer is now challenging the entire decision - rather than just the ruling about addresses - claiming that the entire judgment by the Freedom of Information Tribunal was "misdrected". The High Court challenge aims to scupper the entire judgment.

Asked if there was any recognition that this desperate bid to keep their expenses secret may look bad, a source close to the deliberations said: "No."

11th hour bid to block MPs expenses being published (UPDATED)

This post is now out of date. See above.

Next Tuesday, every item claimed on expenses by 14 MPs as part of their £23,000 second homes allowance was due to be published. After a ruling by the Information Tribunal, every kitchen refit, television, mortagage payment and housekeeping costs should have been made public. Details of the Additional Costs Allowance for the other 632 were due to follow in October.

This will now almost certainly not happen. The last fortnight has seen a titanic backlash from MPs of all three parties -- and against the legal advice sought by the House of Commons Commission last week -- they will appeal.

MPs say they are furious that they are being asked to disclose their home addresses. They cite the huge security implications, prevelance of nutters, and lengths that MPs have gone to inside Westminster to keep them secure (every piece of mail is screened, for instance). But my suspicion is that this argument is being used as an attempt to block disclosure of everything else.

Last week's private legal advice said there was very little grounds in law for appeal - except over whether home addresses should be made public. This gave the Commission two options: 1. publish the information requested by the Tribunal with the addresses withheld and see if anyone complains (they almost certaintly wouldn't win a complaint). Or 2. Appeal the entire judgement in the High Court.

On Tuesday morning, when the Commission meets to decide, they will opt for option 2, delaying publication of everything. Apparently they didn't go for option 1 because they "didn't want to let 14 MPs hang out to dry".

The battle for full disclosure is far from over.

The John Lewis list - was it the real one?

Last week the Commons FOI team issued the "John Lewis list", two sides of A4 listing the maximums MPs could claim for household goods such as washing machines and TVs.

However Andrew Walker, Parliament's expenses chief, told an FOI tribunal: "The John Lewis list is a spreadsheet with a list of goods mainly, and some services, that have been asked for or claimed by members, and what a reasonable amount for those goods would be for a pay, and what an unreasonable amount and queried. You have not got a copy."

Asked to produce a copy, he replied: "It does not exist in paper form and whether it can be printed I don't know."

So what was produced to the media was not a spreadsheet, and did not have "services", perhaps housekeeping costs etc. Time for some more FOIs ...

FOI ruling on second homes allowance: lawyers say no grounds for appeal

Another victory for Freedom of Information and more trouble for MPs ahead.

Nick Robinson is reporting that lawyers have told the House of Commons Commission that they don't have a realistic chance of winning a High Court appeal to stop details of every item spent on the second homes allowance being published. They will now have to follow the FOI Tribunal's decision.

Earlier today we saw the maximums that MPs could claim for furnishings and electoral equipment, the so called "John Lewis" list. Now we will see what they did claim.

In the first instance, we will see details of 14 individuals' expenses, including the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, down to the last receipt and probably within the next month. This will be extended to every MP in the autumn.

Expect much unhappiness among MPs as details of their spending are made public.

One thing is certain: there is no way the £22,000 second homes allowance will survive another year now that the public has a right to know how every last penny is spent.

MPs' expenses: the John Lewis list in full

After Freedom of Information requests by The Times and the Press Association, Parliament has reluctantly agreed to publish the so-called John Lewis list, which officials use when deciding whether furnishings bought by MPs for their second home can be put on expenses. It was so named because staff used the John Lewis website as their guide to "reasonsable prices". Rather than Matalan.

And it begs the question: how is an air-conditioning unit and £750 stereo justifiable at the taypayers' expense?

The FOI request says:

Staff are instructed to use the list as a guide when assessing whether purchases are allowable under Green Book section 3.14.1 – non-allowable expenditure: “furnishings (inc white goods, TV/DVD) or fittings which are antique, luxury or premium grade”, and section 3.10.1 – allowable expenditure: “Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.”

Air-conditioning unit
£299.99  Max

Bed
£1,000.00 Max

Bedside cabinet
..... continued below.........

The flaw in the expenses crackdown

The committee chaired by the Speaker has produced another report this morning on expenses, reducing the threshold for producing receipts from £250 to £50. Only problem is it doesn't include the £400 per month food allowance.

"The question of food while working away from home will be considered in the context of the root and branch review of allowances and is not covered by this report," it says

Is this the bravest man in Westminster?

From the start of the new financial year, MPs will have to submit receipts for everything over £25, a tenth of the current minimum receiptable value, according to an announcement this morning.

This brings them into line with the private sector after a series of embarrassments, yet has prompted much mumble gumbling in the members' lobbies that it has increased bureaucracy and a hassle and so on. Yet, despite the sniffiness, no one has been prepared to put their head above the parapet to say so publicly, presumably for fear of the backlash.

Until today.

Martyn Jones, a veteran Labour MP for Clywd South, issued the following press release. While many will disagree with him, at least he has been brave enough to come forward. Here is the full text: do you have sympathy with any of his points?

“I do feel let down by this decision. It seems to me that it is a strong reaction to a web of corruption in Parliament which simply doesn’t exist. Of course, given the recent issues concerning Derek Conway it is impossible to say that there isn’t the odd MP trying to exploit the system for personal gain. However the majority of MPs stick rigidly to the rules and even hold themselves to a higher standard for fear of being accused of corruption.

It is a shame that certain elements of the tabloid press have whipped up such a storm regarding MP’s expenses. The result is this review, which has landed us with a system that will turn out to be steeped in bureaucracy. The aim of this

Unbridled misery

As the full scale of the Lib Dem revolt becomes clear, it did not go unnoticed that Vince Cable (who harbours his own doubts and has appeared on an Open Europe platform) chose not to take his customary seat next to Nick Clegg on the Liberal Democrat front bench, but chose to sit in the row behind.

Also, both Labour and Tory MPs have been going around highlighting the role of the erstwhile leadership challenger Chris Huhne. They have suggested that his repeated loyal interventions, helping the new leader, are similar to Winston Churchill in 1940 staunchly supporting Neville Chamberlain. They are cruel.

A comment from HD sent this morning: "I feel bewildered, let down, upset,etc. I am a Lib Dem (was a Young Liberal in 60s London). I voted for Nick Clegg recently (tho' I was hard-pressed to choose him over Chris Huhne (whom I also thought excellent). When I returned from holiday yesterday and caught up on the latest Lib Dem "saga" I thought, "Oh no, here we go again; being sneered at by Paxo among others." I really cannot stand much more but would have to have gone gaga before I could ever vote Tory or Labour (and we think the Americans have problems politically!)"

MPs told to disclose cleaning bills

MPs will be horrified. The Information Tribunal into whether MPs should disclose more details about the £21,000 second-home allowance (see here, here and here) has decided that they should. Everything. The fish tank bills are a-coming.

Parliament has 28 days to disclose and it may never happen (the Speaker has a veto, but think of the political consequences in the current climate). The order relates to 11 MPs including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and although the rest will certainly follow it may not be at once. But the particular interest of the ruling comes from the verdict on the system passed by the tribunal. They were not impressed:

It is not our function to say what system ought to be operated by the House. But we cannot avoid making some assessment of the existing system, since we cannot decide the issues which are before us without arriving at a view on the effectiveness of the existing controls. The laxity of and lack of clarity in the rules for ACA is redolent of a culture very different from that which exists in the commercial sphere or in most other public sector organisations today.

While we can appreciate that the emphasis on self-certification is historically derived from Members' constitutional position as elected representatives, even if self-certification were considered to be in principle an acceptable system in modern conditions, the inadequacy of that approach is manifest as soon as it is appreciated that the Members upon whom the responsibility of certification is placed do not have access to a clear, coherent and comprehensive statement of their entitlements such as might enable them to fulfil that responsibility. Moreover the information published in the Green Book does not match the system as actually administered, and hence as actually experienced by MPs.

In our judgment these features, coupled with the very limited nature of the checks, constitute a recipe for confusion, inconsistency and the risk of misuse. Seen in relation to the public interest that public money should be, and seen to be, properly spent, the ACA system is deeply unsatisfactory, and the shortfall both in transparency and in accountability is acute.

Send MEPs down over expense fraud, says Lib Dem

Send them to prison, thundered Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat whistle blower who saw a secret Brussels expenses report revealing MEPs pocketing the £120,000 intended to pay staff. As Times Brussels man David Charter reports, the European Parliamentary authorities only let Davies view the document in a secret location under guard. Having returned to the office, he made as many notes as he could, phoned the fraud squad and contacted journalists. Weeks after the Conway affair, what lessons for the UK?

1. Parliamentary institutions instinctively protect their own. Davies could only see the document because he was a member of the budget committee, signed a confidentiality agreement and did not take notes. Nor did the damning document contain any names: that would have been too sensitive, eurocrats must have calculated.

2. This reinforces the importance of the external audit to double check Parliament's expenses system. The absues were uncovered from a random sample of expenses examined between 2004 and 2006. Has such an exercise ever been conducted in UK Parliament? Many will say it should in future.

3. The MEP expense scandal may ultimately work in favour of our own politicians, allowing them to point to Brussels and claim the scale of fraud is much worse elsewhere. Le train de jus est magnifique pour toutes!

PS The response of the European Parliament? "'The document is not secret, it is confidential" says a spokesman

Did Parliament's expenses chief deliberately sabotage MPs allowances, an MP asks

Andrew Walker, Parliament's expenses chief, caused a stir after his appearance in front of a tribunal last week, suggesting fish tanks may be claimable and appearing unable to explain why the £400 unreceipted food allwance for MPs was not mentioned in any public document. But was this a deliberate wrecking strategy, an MP has now asked.

According to the well-connected source, Walker is an exceptionally smart individual. He started the job in 1997 and - according to this MP - is by far the most rigorous person to hold that position. Before he arrived, MPs could spend the allowance on pretty much anything - with no receipts. Now under his reforms MPs must produce paperwork for much - though not all - of the £23,000 allowance.

The Additional Costs Allowance must be a hassle to administer for Mr Walker's department, particularly now it has become hugely politically post-Conway. Perhaps he too would like reform. Was this a very effective route to embarrass MPs into changing the system?

Expenses: John Hemming defends the system

Lots of anger among MPs still on expenses. Inner London MPs are furious about the £400 a month food allowance, which they do not get and some had not realised existed. ("There's a real Inner London - Outer London thing going on," says one.) Others are cross that the fees office appears to have been so slack. Just one MP, John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, has put his head above the parapet on the record to defend this system. Here is what he says:

I own a number of properties in London and Birmingham. All of these properties were purchased prior to my election as a Member of Parliament. I live in Birmingham. I have two flats in London. One is rented out. The other one I live in. If I were not to be a Member of Parliament I could rent out the second for around £25,000 per year. Even if I claimed the maximum Additional Costs Allowance it would only be £22,010. I actually claim  £18,447 - 437th. I don't mind the fact that I get less money than I would were I not to be an MP. I do, however, mind the imputation (The Independent today) that there is anything wrong with this.

There are costs that people encounter when they have to stay away from home. Many organisations provide an overnight ...