Categories
Expenses Staffing

MPs’ staffing and expenses: setting the bar higher

I continue to be amazed, not only at Derek Conway’s appalling behaviour, but by the relatively limited measures that MPs are proposing to put in place in response.

It’s time for a higher standard.  I’m genuinely surprised by how many MPs employ family members.  It feels like a throwback to an earlier age. It’s hard to see how this would happen if they used a properly open and fair recruitment process, open to all and selecting only on performance related criteria.

I don’t think it’s enough to wait for ‘the authorities’ to sort this out – and I also don’t think that improved reporting alone is enough. This is an area where MPs should be taking a lead. In practice, even the measures they propose leave them far behind many companies in the private sector.

There is a code of conduct for MPs: in many ways it’s less demanding than many of those in the private sector (see this one from Procter & Gamble for example [PDF]).  For example, business employers normally expect you to avoid any conflict of interest in recruitment, not just report it.

In short, behaviours need to change – not just be made public.

To try and cut through all this, and ahead of any new policy coming from the Committee on Standards in Public Life or the Speaker’s Review, here are the pledges I intend to keep if elected as MP for Winchester:

  • I will not employ any family members at public expense.
  • I will advertise all publicly-funded jobs in the local papers. All jobs, whether in London or Winchester, will be advertised in the main local Winchester and Chandler’s Ford newspapers, including the Hampshire Chronicle and the Daily Echo. Anyone will be able to apply.  
  • I will consider all applicants equally for any job. People will be chosen on the the basis of merit, measured against objective job requirements, which I will publish on my website. I will not discriminate based on age, sex, marital status, disability, sexuality, race, colour, or ethnic origin.
  • I will publish a list of all employees on my website. I will also publish the total salary bill. To respect individual privacy, I will not publish individual salaries. (I recognise that this can be a tricky issue for some current MPs, particularly those that have had any problems with security, since their staff may not have been employed on the basis that their names would be made public).

The second area of interest is expenses.  I’m amazed that some MPs are claiming to get their groceries paid for in London.  I’m horrified by these stories of MPs buying iPods on expenses due to the requirement to provide receipts only for purchases over £250. In the private sector, these people would be fired.

It seems incredible that only a few months ago, some MPs were arguing that they should be exempted from Freedom of Information legislation – and it’s good that now the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives at least are arguing for much greater openness.

Again, this is an area where I think MPs should take a lead – not just in reporting – but also in the standards they set themselves. To this end:

  • I will publish details of my expenses annually on my website
  • I will not claim any expenses without a receipt
  • I will get my accounts independently verified
  • I will only claim where I’m incurring genuine extra cost at the service of Winchester constituents. Even if there are rules that might permit me to claim for groceries and similar items when staying away from home, I won’t.  I will only claim for costs that are both extra and unavoidable.

Finally, I don’t think it’s enough to report a conflict of interest.  MPs should, wherever possible, avoid them.

  • I will not accept any gifts, gratuities or entertainment from lobbyists and anyone else who might be seeking to influence my opinion.

Is this enough?  Personally, I see it as pretty much a minimum.

I’ll be interested in any comments – whether suggesting higher standards – or looser ones!  And I’ll be interested to know if any other candidate or MP, from any party, thinks these standards are worth signing up to.

Categories
Mark Oaten Textile Conservation Centre Video

Textile Conservation Centre – update

A very good report from Briony Leyland on the threat to Winchester’s Textile Conservation Centre.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the Government are flunking their responsibilities here. Ian Pearson’s answer to a question that Mark asked in Parliament makes this particularly clear.

But it’s probably best to let the report speak for itself!

[MEDIA=11]

Categories
Elections

Another stunning Hampshire by-election victory – this time in Portsmouth

Following the Lib Dem by-election victories in Wickham, Whitchurch, Romsey and Baughurst, another great result in Copnor, Portsmouth earlier this evening with a 28.5% swing from Conservative to Lib Dem.

Party/Candidate Votes % vs 2007
Liberal Democrats (Andy Fraser) 1,835 55.8% +38.4%
Conservative 904 27.5% -18.6%
Labour 349 10.6% -8.2%
English Democrats 117 3.6% -13.6%
UKIP 57 1.7% +1.7%
Independent 28 0.9% +0.9%
Swing from Con to LD     28.5%

A very satisfying place to spend the afternoon and a fabulous result for Andy Fraser, Darren Sanders, Gerald Vernon-Jackson and the rest of the local team.

Post-note: now corrected with updated figures…

Categories
Chandlers Ford Post Office

Fryern Hill Post Office – now it’s March

As most local people now know, the replacement post office for Fryern Hill didn’t reopen in January as originally promised.

Apparently, the original negotiations for a replacement site fell through.

I’ve been told that the post office have a new site in negotiation. The estimated timing is now March.

Categories
Environment Housing Micheldever Micheldever Station Eco-Town Planning

Micheldever Station Eco-Town – still a bad idea – and still not eco

I went to the annual general meeting of the Dever Society last night. Steve Tilbury, the Head of Operations at Winchester City Council was there and made an excellent and informative presentation. As part of it, he referenced an article by David Blackman and Joey Gardiner in Building magazine – which accurately captures the general mood locally about the Micheldever Station Eco-Town:

The list of sites put forward by developers reads like a greatest hits of planning applications gone by. The communities department refuses to publish the list, but an investigation by Building has uncovered nine, all of which bring on a sense of deja vu. Micheldever, for example, the proposed site of a 12,500-home town, was put forward to two Hampshire structure plan inquiries in the late nineties, before being rejected in 2000 …

It looks like developers and councils have leaped at the chance to build on sites that have lain fallow for decades, dusting off old schemes, tarting them up with low-carbon jargon and bolting on eco-bling. Conservation groups on the other hand, are horrified.

Elsewhere in Building magazine, Mark Brinkley confirms the traffic concerns I posted about earlier this month (from a position of considerably greater expertise!) ; in particular, he highlights the consequences of the Government’s requirement that “Eco-towns must be new settlements – separate and distinct from existing towns but well linked to them”:

Why throw that into the mix? What is remotely eco about it? In terms of transportation, building away from existing urban centres is very bad news. It requires much more infrastructure and adds to travel and commuting times. Why abandon the policy thrusts towards urban extensions and regenerating brownfield?

The CPRE has also come out against the proposal. My friend, and former neighbour at University, Tom Oliver, is now their head of rural policy and was quoted in this Independent article which summarises many of the arguments against the Micheldever proposals (although is a bit light on the transport issues).

Tom Oliver, the head of countryside policy for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said such a new town “would overshadow a huge swathe of rural Hampshire”. He added: “The site has been rejected repeatedly as a possible major new development and has only returned as a figment of corporate opportunism. To decorate this proposal with ‘eco-bling’ is cynical and undermines the credibility of the Government’s eco-towns competition.”

One final tidbit. The news broke today that Tony Blair has been signed up by Zurich – the parent company of the Micheldever development – as an environmental advisor. Given Blair’s record on the environment, I’m tempted to repeat Tom Lehrer’s reaction when he heard that Kissinger had won the Nobel peace prize.

Because Eagle Star’s plan to trash the environment and increase the Winchester district’s carbon footprint will likely make them north of £1 billion were they to get the go-ahead, there’s plenty of money in this project (at least on their side) for endless consultancy (possibly including Blair) to try and push the project through – even if they assume a very low chance of success. Although the Dever Society has done a great job of fundraising, Eagle Star is an incredibly expensive company to take on, so if you feel like becoming a friend of the Dever Society in order to support their opposition to the proposals, the membership form is here. If you haven’t already signed the petition against the Micheldever development, you can do so here.

PS: I particularly like the term ‘eco-bling’ used by Tom and in the Building magazine article. In the US last week, I heard another new eco-term for the first time: ‘green-collar worker’. When I contacted Tom after reading his quotes in the Independent article, I emailed to ask (among other things) if he was one. He answered happily to the lunch I suggested in the email, but, to date, is strangely silent on the ‘green collar’ issue.