ProfilGATE

I was going to start referring to the MP's expenses scandal as "Profligate", and though I would like to claim that as my own, it is day 5 so I would imagine it has already been widely used and I just did not notice.

However, a useful page for all bloggers is here, which contains a list of previously used ...GATE scandal names, so as to help confusion. I may start referring to it myself as we seem to be needing a new ...GATE reference every 2-3 weeks now(Though I note, Jacqui Smith's MasturGATE scandal is missing from this list).

MP Expenses.... Again

More expenses stories today as Margaret Beckett and Alistair Darling are implicated by the Daily Mail in a Third House expenses scandal. The pair are renting out London Flats whilst living in Grace-and-favour homes whilst claiming the second house allowance on third homes.

Of course the pair are saying that they have not acted outside of the rules, as if this offers defence of their actions. it is the rules, the rules, the rules... and who writes those rules?

The idea behind the allowances towards second homes is to ensure people from any background can afford to run for Parliament without the cost of living in two locations and the travel involved being a barrier to people running. This is so that the Commons can remain full of common people, not only an elite who can afford to be there. The rules around this notion are then designed not to be too constraining to allow MP's not to have to jump through hoops to get back legitimate expenses and use their time serving their constituents.

There in lies the flaw, it is a system designed on the premise that the people using it are honourable and will not abuse it.

It is because it is so easy to claim that so much has and will continue to be claimed. We are not just paying for second houses we are paying for petrol, rail fares and flights in between.

I had hoped that the Conservatives would have got tighter rules published and declare them the standard moving forwards for their candidates and for all MP's upon forming a new Government... I am sure despite their differences Nick Clegg would be on board with such a move as it is something the Liberal Democrats can use on the doorstep in the Labour wards they are targeting.

I personally think that MP's that whose constituencies are within 60 miles of Westminster should not be allowed a second house allowance at all. I understand that on occasion there is the requirement for an MP to stay over night and for those MPs in this zone, provision for a stay in a reasonably priced hotel should be afforded. This sum will be massively below the second house allowances currently being claimed.

For MPs outside the 60 mile zone they should show cause for needing a second home in London, for example, those from Scotland and Wales are too far away for sure, but at 65 or 70 miles, the hotel allowance may still be the cheaper and more appropriate option. However, at 65 to 70 miles this MP may have a ministerial or shadow cabinet position that requires much more time in London and then the cost and inconvenience of hotels may be greater than that of having a residence.

Those requiring a second home should not be allowed to purchase one through expenses. It is not right that MP's be in a position to profit from a home paid for by tax payers. Instead reasonably priced accommodation should be provided by the Government within a reasonable distance to Westminster. These flats or houses (for MP's with families) should be vacated within a week of departing the seat, so that an incoming MP can take their place. My previous suggestion still stands, there would be a benefit to all if these houses were existing council houses. This as much as being an affordable option would locate the MP's and their families in with local communities.

Do I think that changes are forthcoming - No.

Why?

Lets look at today's villains, Mr Darling and Mrs Beckett. As MP's they get to write their own rules on how much they get paid and how much they can claim in expenses. I think that should stop, and that we need an elected second chamber so that the two houses can monitor each others behaviour. But, what have these two done to make this part of the system better whilst they can? Nothing. How have they voted in the past? Mr Darling didn't bother and Mrs Beckett voted against a transparent parliament.

So what hope do tax payers have of reigning this in, in the meantime?

A Reminder About Our Home Secretary

To quote TheyWorkforYou.Com, as seen here.....

How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.

Now there's a surprise!

After Thought

Perhaps the Government will now look at my proposal. MP's should not be allowed to claim on second mortgages, but should have council housing made available to them in London instead.

Here is the link to my original suggestion.

Home Secretary Is Ripping Off Tax Payers

Just seen this story at Guido's, here.

The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Jacqui Smith has been making allowance claims for a second home in London, which actually belongs to her sister.

It is though the Home Secretary has claimed the maximum claim possible, £24,006 p.a totalling approx £116,000 in allowances against her house in Redditch, where her husband and family live. This is because the Home Secretary has stated that that this is her second property as her main residence is in London. However, as the London house is actually owned by her sister, this is a breach of parliamentary rules and is strictly forbidden as she is effectively lodging at a family members house.

Had the Home Secretary lived in one of the ministerial homes that are made available to ministers, the tax payer may also have been spared and further £200,000 in the cost of additional policing, from when she stays at her sister's property.

It is an astonishing that such a key member of the government could be taking so much money in expenses and be unaware that she was breaching the rules. Mrs Smith, and her finances should be fully investigated and the extent of any impropriety detailed before the House of Commons. And if the evidence confirms a breach of the rules, the necessary, and appropriate discipline should be enforced.

There will no doubt be focus on what role the Home Secretary had within the governments recent attempts to exempt MPs from the Freedom Of Information Act in respect to publishing receipts of expenses. The Government was keen that MPs expenses not be published in any detail. This is a most perfect example of exactly why such rules should never be allowed. Transparency is a necessity is an open democracy. Contempt for accountability, is contempt of the voters.

I look forward to seeing Jacqui Smith on television tomorrow. Undoubtedly this whole incident will not be her fault. I will not be holding my breath that an apology will be forthcoming either. New Labour don't really do resignations on breach of principles (or rules), so we can expect a long drawn out drama on this. One more nail in the coffin of the Labour Party.