And another thing…

CHIEF executives of local authorities who are also returning officers are paid additional sums on top of what they get paid for their day jobs.

Except, if some of them get their way, and the counting of ballot papers in the general election are counted during office hours on the Friday instead of on Thursday night, then their returning officer jobs will become a day job as well. But they’ll still be paid for both. Obviously.

So how much extra are they paid on top of their extremely generous salaries as chief executives? Good question, and one to which I’m trying to get the answer. Yesterday I sent an FOI request to every local authority in Scotland asking what, if any, additional payments their chief executives receive for returning officer duties at general, European and Scottish elections.

Answers have been dribbling in, and I hope to have a clear picture of what these payments are in the next couple of weeks. The least helpful response to my queries so far has come from Moray Council:

I am writing to advise you that following research of the Council’s papers and electronic records the Council does not hold the information you requested.  We are therefore unable to comply with your request under Section 17 (1b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Which is odd, because of those councils who have responded so far, Moray is the only one which doesn’t hold at least some of the information I requested. Public authorities will often refuse to provide information if it is already in the public domain, but will at least let the requester know where to look for it. Moray have not done this.

The thing is, surely the chief executive of Moray Council knows how much he gets for his additional duties as a returning officer? Did no-one think to ask him?

I’VE BEEN entertaining myself by having a look at the lists of Freedom of Information requests submitted to the Commons over the past few years.

Most of them, as you might expect, are for details on MPs’ expenses. Others are from people simply hoping the Commons authorities will carry out their research work for them. Many are sensible.

But some of them are simply bizarre. Below is a sample of them, with a summary of the request, the response and the date the response was made:

• Ethnicity, Sexual orientation, religious beliefs of the personnel in House of Commons – Information supplied where held  – 21/04/08

“Sexual orientation”? Who on earth would ask that, and who has the right to divulge that information other than the individual whose sexual orientation is being discussed?

• How many times has the present speaker called MPs from each party to speak in PM question time and oblige – Information available by other means. Section 21 exemption applied – 02/05/08

The end of this request is cut off, so we don’t know what the requestor was going to ask after “and oblige”. But this is an example of someone who can’t be bothered having to trawl through Hansard himself. It’s also probably someone who thought Michael Martin called more Labour than opposition MPs at PMQs and wants the facts to substantiate his theories. in other words, someone who doesn’t understand how the Commons works; the Speaker always calls for questions from government and opposition benches alternately.

• Details of any policy that may exist on the use of fish from sustainable sources in parliamentary catering operations – Some information supplied other information not held – 10/04/08

Hmm… fish!

• When did a named MP eat or sleep and what is the make of her car? – Pre-2002 information held provided. [Provided in full.] – 26/04/07

Whoever said some FOI requests were intrusive?

• Cost of lease on the fig trees in PCH (Portcullis House) and whether there are arrangements on expiry of the current lease – Information provided in full – 18/07/07

Yes, those trees are leased. Don’t ask.

• How many .mp3 or other media files are stored on HoC computers? – Unable to determine whether files contain music, however total number of MP3 & WMA files on network provided – 24/05/06

Someone obviously wants to know about my Barclay James Harvest collection.

• Request for further info on: a) Internet browsing habits b) Email traffic c) Electronic parliamentary procedures – Information provided in full, though some information not held in form requested – 18/08/06

MPs’ internet browsing habits?! And was that request rejected? Oh, it was… phew…!

• The number of accident reports and near-miss reports filed relating to paper cuts over the last year in the Palace? – Information not held – 21/12/06

Paper cuts? Seriously? That’s elf ‘n’ safety gone made, that is…

• Brand, softness, and quantity of toilet paper bought by the Palace – Figures provided for 10/04 – 12/05. Information for previous years not held – 12/01/2006

“MPs get to use soft toilet paper? At our expense? Just shows how out of touch they are, the blimmin’ troughers, etc, etc…” But seriously, someone actualy wasted seconds of their life submitting this request?

SO, THE Information Commissioner has ruled that ministers can’t have private meetings any more.

This is undoubtedly a cause of celebration for LibDem MPs who don’t expect ever to be in government anyway. But at the risk (and for “risk” read “certainty”) of being accused of being an anti-democratic control freak, there can sometimes be good reasons for holding private meetings where a record isn’t taken. The most successful negotiations, between ministers and his civil servants, between departments or between a department and an outside body, can very often start with an informal discussion that, technically, didn’t actually happen.

No more, apparently. Openness and transparency counts more than successful delivery of policy, I suppose. Hooray for the Freedom of Information Act and the Information Tribunal.

As a transport minister, I once received a request from the department’s press office for details of the car I drive as a “civilian”, as it were. I informed my private secretary that, naturally, I wouldn’t be divulging that information. But out of curiosity, I asked the press officer in question why he wanted the information. He said he had received a request from The Times for the make and model of car each minister drove in their private lives. 

Why should this information be divulged? What would be the rationale, I asked? Because if the department is telling people what kind of car to drive, their own choice of car was a matter of public interest, came the reply.

Two points of interest here: the Department for Transport doesn’t tell anyone what kind of car to drive, and I certainly wouldn’t have anyway. And even if that was something it did, I still wouldn’t have dreamed of divulging that kind of thing.

I pointed out to the disappointed press officer that if we agree to give out details of the (non-government) cars we drive, the next thing will be a demand to know if we intend to take a long-haul flight when we go on holiday, or whether or not we have central heating installed in our homes. A flea in the ear was duly administered.

Of course, that particular piece of information was not applied for under FoI, but under MOPB (Minding Other People’s Business). Still, given some of the recent rulings of the Information Tribunal, had it come under FoI, they would probably have sanctioned it.

The Conservative Party is making a mistake by trying to make MPs’ expenses a party political issue. I can see why they might want to, but I fear they might come to regret it. But it’s clear they are determined to carry on down this path, judging by the tone (and strange consistency) of comments from Tory activists on this site as well as posts by Tory bloggers elsewhere.

We’re constantly being told, by the media and by Tory MPs, of how confident Dave is of becoming prime minister. But this latest tactic smacks of desperation.

I take the same view on this as on abortion: free votes in the Commons shouldn’t be exploited by parties for electoral gain.

The good ol’ High Court seems to have had the final word on whether the details of MPs’ expenses claims are published. Well, transparency is what it’s all about, and conventional wisdom suggests that attempts to withhold details are making us even more unpopular.

So let’s publish everything. It’s bound to make MPs even more popular than we are now. After all, MSPs have published their expenses in detail and that’s why everyone loves them… er, hold on a minute…

A complaint against Mary (wife of Michael) Martin over the cost of her taxi fares has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. When the complaint was first made it was splashed all across every newspaper and broadcast in the land. So it’s good to see that, in the spirit of fairness and balance, today’s development has been given similar levels of coverage – er… hang on…

Of course, that would never happen. Allegations against politicians and their families are considered newsworthy, however little truth the allegations contain. When an investigation reveals an allegation to be entirely spurious, journalists suddenly find things like “facts” to be not nearly as interesting, or newsworthy.

Referring to the Speaker’s expenses for maintaining his residence, failed MP Martin Bell: “We are close to a state of constitutional crisis.”

Attacking Michael Martin for authorising work in his official home is like criticising the Queen for allowing restoration work at Buckingham Palace. I actually remember a member of the public phoning Radio 4 during the “controversy” over Derry Irvine’s wallpaper back in 1997 (I think) suggesting that instead of buying Pugin wallpaper for the Lord Chancellor’s apartments, he should pop off to B&Q and get something nice for a tenner a role. Actually, on reflection, maybe that caller was Martin Bell in disguise…?

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times.

Lots of articial indignation in today’s press about the decision by the House of Commons authorities to appeal against publication of MPs’ expenses. Even St Norman of Lewes accepts that publishing MPs’ London addresses would be a barmy idea: to recap, by logging onto parliament’s website you would find out exactly what items individual MPs have bought for their second homes, exactly where those homes are, and what dates we’re in recess (when MPs are usually in their constituencies) – hey presto, a burglar’s charter.

I hate the term “no-brainer”, but there are times when I’m tempted to use it.

Interestingly, Guido Fawkes’s attempts to get details of Nick Robinson’s expenses (what with him being paid out of the public purse and everything) have elicited a refusal from the Beeb, on the grounds that poor Nick had every right to expect his expenses to be kept private when he first claimed them. Now where have I heard that before…?

I see the BBC’s Nick Robinson is positively salivating at the prospect of MPs’ expenses being published in full. One of the two constituents who’ve written to me about this issue received a response from me along these lines: “If it were up to the public, the only reward a public servant received would be to be put in stocks every fortnight and pelted with rotten fruit. And even then there would be a public demand that it should happen every week.”

He replied with a more chastened view. Robinson’s view is that only by being completely open about our expenses will the public have respect for MPs. Sadly optimistic. As long as MPs exist, they/we will be despised. It comes with the territory.