Ducking the Issue
The outcome of the investigation into Maria Miller's expenses resulted in the former culture secretary resigning her position as a Government Minister, but was otherwise depressingly predictable with the usual 'bunfight' in the House of Commons and the main political parties blame each other for not doing more - while failing to realise the extent to which the Westminster Parliament is now held in contempt.
The same cannot be said of the Scottish Parliament, however, because since its creation in 1999 MSPs of all parties have behaved with a degree of integrity that is missing at Westminster although Holyrood did have the advantage of starting with a relatively clean slate.
So Holyrood never had its own version of the MPs' expenses scandal at Westminster and as the Scottish Parliament does not have a second revising chamber, Scotland has no need for the insult to democracy that is the House of Lords.
But the Scottish Parliament has achieved things that seem beyond the reach of Westminster - first and foremost the Scottish Parliament is based on a form of proportional representation (PR) and does, therefore, reflect the broad views of the Scottish people.
Secondly, the Scottish Parliament can face up to the need for change in the sense that the second Scottish Coalition Government (2003-2007), a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, agreed to introduce PR for Scottish council elections - which has changed the face of Scottish local government.
Yet at Westminster we still have First Past The Post (FPTP) for general elections and nosing of PR for local elections which means that political institutions south of the border are very unrepresentative of the public mood, and so UKIP cashes in on Westminster's tin ear.
Going back to MPs' expenses and the Maria Miller affair, Labour just wants to blame the Tories and the Tories want to do the same to Labour - yet they both have skeletons in their closet which neither party wants to come tumbling out into the open.
But for the life of me I can't see how either Sir Paul Beresford (Tory) or Gordon Brown (Labour) can be regarded as acting properly when they do not operate as full-time Westminster MPs - yet their respective parties pretend it's not going on and never say a word.
More Moonlighting MPs (20 January 2011)
The Daily Telegraph continues to perform a great public service - by exposing the strange behaviour of some Westminster MPs.
The latest example is Sir Paul Beresford - a high profile Tory MP this time - who works three days a week as a dentist would you believe - whilst being paid a public salary of £64,766 a year to represent the good citizens of Mole Valley in Surrey.
Here's an extract of what The Telegraph had to say about the antics of this particular MP:
"Sir Paul Beresford, a Conservative MP who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances.
Sir Paul, who was named last year as the 34th most “influential” dentist in the country, worked out a deal with the House of Commons fees office whereby he put three quarters of the running costs of the property on the taxpayer.
The MP for Mole Valley in Surrey, who served as an environment minister under John Major for three years while retaining his successful dental practice, insisted that the arrangement was cheaper for the taxpayer.
But the understanding with the fees office is certain to raise further questions about the lax policing of MPs’ expenses, after it emerged that officials did not visit the surgery to assess Sir Paul’s designation of his property, or ask to see floor plans.
Before his election to Parliament in 1992, the property — two floors of a Georgian town house above a hairdressing salon in Putney, south-west London — was registered with the local council as 50 per cent residential and 50 per cent business.
He had set up two surgeries within the flat, which were served by three dentists.
On becoming an MP, Sir Paul said the fees office suggested that he purchase a second home but he decided instead to reduce his practice and go part-time.
As the council and some utility companies charged him separate business rates, he said he decided that “roughly” three-quarters of the costs of the flat were related to his parliamentary duties and so should be borne by the taxpayer.
This included mortgage interest payments of £350 a month, ground rent and other bills.
Sir Paul said that, at this stage, he had only one surgery and no associates, and that the patient waiting room doubled as his private lounge in the evenings. However, it appeared that his assessment was not independently scrutinised by officials.
The MP decided to increase his practice in 2007 and took on a larger share of the running costs, putting 50 per cent on the taxpayer.
Last year, he began to convert the surgery back to its original state, and stopped claiming second home allowances altogether. He said he would not claim again in future. The Putney practice bears a gold plaque reading: “Sir Paul Beresford, Derrick Donald and associates dental surgery.”Now Sir Paul Beresford is not the only backbench MP to have other paid interests outside of his day job - there are many others whose activities don't bear much scrutiny - both now and in the past.
The important point to be made is that being an MP is supposed to be a full-time job - otherwise it would not receive a full-time salary.
So it seems perfecly reasonable that MPs should be prevented from taking on additional paid work - what do you think MPs would say if a senior civil servant said he was taking up a part-time and demanding job as dentist?
The latest example is Sir Paul Beresford - a high profile Tory MP this time - who works three days a week as a dentist would you believe - whilst being paid a public salary of £64,766 a year to represent the good citizens of Mole Valley in Surrey.
Here's an extract of what The Telegraph had to say about the antics of this particular MP:
"Sir Paul Beresford, a Conservative MP who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances.
Sir Paul, who was named last year as the 34th most “influential” dentist in the country, worked out a deal with the House of Commons fees office whereby he put three quarters of the running costs of the property on the taxpayer.
The MP for Mole Valley in Surrey, who served as an environment minister under John Major for three years while retaining his successful dental practice, insisted that the arrangement was cheaper for the taxpayer.
But the understanding with the fees office is certain to raise further questions about the lax policing of MPs’ expenses, after it emerged that officials did not visit the surgery to assess Sir Paul’s designation of his property, or ask to see floor plans.
Before his election to Parliament in 1992, the property — two floors of a Georgian town house above a hairdressing salon in Putney, south-west London — was registered with the local council as 50 per cent residential and 50 per cent business.
He had set up two surgeries within the flat, which were served by three dentists.
On becoming an MP, Sir Paul said the fees office suggested that he purchase a second home but he decided instead to reduce his practice and go part-time.
As the council and some utility companies charged him separate business rates, he said he decided that “roughly” three-quarters of the costs of the flat were related to his parliamentary duties and so should be borne by the taxpayer.
This included mortgage interest payments of £350 a month, ground rent and other bills.
Sir Paul said that, at this stage, he had only one surgery and no associates, and that the patient waiting room doubled as his private lounge in the evenings. However, it appeared that his assessment was not independently scrutinised by officials.
The MP decided to increase his practice in 2007 and took on a larger share of the running costs, putting 50 per cent on the taxpayer.
Last year, he began to convert the surgery back to its original state, and stopped claiming second home allowances altogether. He said he would not claim again in future. The Putney practice bears a gold plaque reading: “Sir Paul Beresford, Derrick Donald and associates dental surgery.”Now Sir Paul Beresford is not the only backbench MP to have other paid interests outside of his day job - there are many others whose activities don't bear much scrutiny - both now and in the past.
The important point to be made is that being an MP is supposed to be a full-time job - otherwise it would not receive a full-time salary.
So it seems perfecly reasonable that MPs should be prevented from taking on additional paid work - what do you think MPs would say if a senior civil servant said he was taking up a part-time and demanding job as dentist?
Moonlighting MPs (10 December 2012)
I'm pleased to announce that my campaign to hold the country's moonlighting MPs to account - for pretending that they can do two jobs at the same time - is starting to take off .
Gordon Brown - the sometime Labour MP and former Prime Minister - was put under the spotlight in yesterday's Sunday Times and rightly so.
Because Gordon is one of the worst offenders - in terms of the amount of time he spends abroad away from his day job - as an MP in the House of Commons.
I also heard Nadine Dorries being interviewed on the Sunday Politics programme yesterday - in which she suggested, quite brazenly, that local constituents in Mid-Bedfordshire are fully behind recent appearance on 'I'm a Celebrity' - in the Australian jungle.
Now there's no way of testing that theory at the moment - short of a general election - because there is no power of recall over Westminster MPs.
Even if people believe they are behaving badly, MPs can just hang on in there and stay in post - until they have to face the electorate again - which may be years away, of course.
The only sensible point that Nadine Dorries made in her interview was that double standards appear to be at work in Westminster - that women MPs seems to be given harsher treatment for stepping out of line compared to their male colleagues.
Now I agree with that because the political establishment at Westminster has taken no action against Gordon Brown for being away so regularly from his post - yet 'Mad Nad' has the Whip withdrawn for what is her first offence.
I hope the Sunday Times article encourages others to raise the issue - because this is not about party politics - it's about the use of public money and the accountability of our elected representatives at Westminster.
The reality is that this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated at any other level of government - because there would be a huge public outcry.
"Globe-trotting Gordon Brown loses his voice"
by Dipesh Gadher
"From dispatch box bruiser to Westminster’s silent man. Gordon Brown has not spoken in parliament for more than a year while crisscrossing the globe to maintain an international profile.
The former Labour prime minister has declared 28 overseas trips on the MPs’ register of interests since he last spoke in the Commons on November 30, 2011. They include six visits to New York, where he holds an academic post, six trips to the Middle East and stop-offs in Seoul, Lagos and Mexico City.
Much of the jet-setting is linked to Brown’s humanitarian work, but his hosts have included Arab rulers, Russian banks and the Chinese government.
Now the Conservatives have accused Brown of having a “casual disregard” for his constituents in Scotland and have written to Ed Miliband, calling on the Labour leader to remove the party whip from the former prime minister.
There is even disquiet among Labour ranks that Brown continues to draw an MP’s salary of £65,738 while making only rare appearances in parliament. “He’s very much the forgotten man; it’s as if he wasn’t here,” said one senior Labour figure. “There must be concern among his constituents that he’s drawing a salary and allowances while not being at Westminster.”
The criticism may put pressure on Brown to relinquish his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat ahead of the 2015 general election.
An audit by The Sunday Times has discovered that only three MPs have been less vocal in parliament than Brown. However, two of them are government whips and, by convention, do not take part in debates.
The third, Khalid Mahmood, a Labour MP in Birmingham, has not spoken since May 2011 but has been suffering from kidney failure and is awaiting a transplant.
Brown has taken part in only three Commons debates since losing the election in May 2010. The last time he spoke, he raised concerns about radioactive waste dumped in his constituency in the 1950s by the Ministry of Defence.
By contrast, John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, spoke in seven debates in the year before he stood down as an MP in 2001.
Hansard records show that Brown last tabled a written parliamentary question on February 9 this year. He has taken part in 14% of votes since losing office, according to the Public Whip website.
Brown declared 28 foreign trips between November 30, 2011, and July 3 this year. He has yet to register at least four further visits, including trips to South Sudan and Pakistan.
Since leaving No 10, Brown has received more than £2m in fees and expenses — although this has all been ploughed back into his public and charitable activities. He has held roles as “distinguished global leader in residence” at New York University and chairman of the World Economic Forum policy co-ordination group.
Brown has also been a visiting fellow at Harvard and was appointed special envoy for global education by the United Nations in July.
Since he last spoke in the Commons, Brown’s declared fees from international speech-making alone have topped £800,000. In May he received £60,679.90 for one hour’s work at an event organised by the Abu Dhabi education council. This equates to more than £1,000 a minute — although it was not for personal gain.
The MPs’ register shows that each payment goes to the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown “for the employment of staff to support my ongoing involvement in public life”.
John Glen, Tory MP for Salisbury, recently wrote to Miliband, claiming that Brown’s prolonged silence showed “a casual disregard” for his constituents. Glen also said many would see Brown’s ability to receive an MP’s salary and thousands of pounds in parliamentary expenses as an “abuse of taxpayers’ money”.
However, a Labour source accused the Tories of hypocrisy, pointing to Nadine Dorries’s recent outing on I’m a Celebrity . . . Get me out of Here!. “David Cameron is such a weak leader that he couldn’t stop his MP abandoning her constituents and appearing in a reality TV show on the other side of the world,” he said.
Yesterday, Brown’s record provoked a mixed response among constituents in Kirkcaldy.
Carol Martin, 59, a charity shop worker, said: “He needs to be regularly voicing the concerns of the town to parliament. Are the amount of foreign trips [he takes] really necessary?”
Neil Campbell, 31, a bricklayer, said: “I really think he is doing all he can for the area and he has my support.”
Rampant Sexism (12 November 2012)
The Conservative MP for Mid-Befordshire - Nadine Dorries - swans off from the House of Commons for up to 30 days to take part in a celebrity TV programme - which is made in some remote part of Australia.
Result - she gets 'pelters' from all quarters and deservedly so - including from the Deputy Labour Leader - Harriet Harman - while standing in at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs).
Ms Harman famous for her support of equalities issues even made a lame joke at Nadine's expense - something about the Tory MP having to deal with all kinds of snakes and toads - before she even arrived in the jungle.
So why is the row in the House of Commons so sexist?
Because lots of other MPs swan off when it suits them - including Harriet's Labour colleague and former Prime Minister - Gordon Brown.
Except Gordon is away from his day job for much more time than Nadine Dorries - 70 days a year (every year) in one job alone - at the New York University in Abu Dhabi, for example.
Yet no one says a word - or makes jokes at Prime Minister's Questions.
Maybe they'll start doing so now.
I certainly hope so because it would be a breath of fresh air - and thoroughly deserved.
Gissa Job (16 July 2012)
I read the other day that Gordon Brown - the sometime Labour MP for Cowdenbeath and Kircaldy - has added yet another string to his bow.
Apparently the former Prime Minister is to become a global envoy for the United Nations.
A position which will, of course, compete for Gordon's time along with his paid role as a 'Distinguished Global Leader in Residence' - at the Abu Dhabi campus of New York University - where he is required to spend 70 days a year.
And his time spent on other charitable works on behalf of 'The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown' - which I have commented upon previously.
Now I have no problem with Gordon Brown spending lots of time out of the country.
But what I don't understand is why he doesn't just resign his seat as an MP - and give someone else the chance of doing a proper full-time day job? Particularly at a time of such high unemployment.
According to press reports Gordon's heart is just not into being a Westminster MP - and since losing the 2010 general election he has apparently taken part in just two parliamentary debates - and only 15 per cent of the votes.
So surely it's time for Gordon to do the right thing - and step aside.
