And another thing…

HAS DAVID Cameron or his advisers ever stopped to ask themselves why, exactly, he’s not seen as a trustworthy person by a large number of voters?

Today’s vacuous nonsense is a perfect example of why he’s still not taken seriously as a potential Prime Minister; his remarks about Gordon Brown and the MPs (and Tory peer) charged over their expenses could have been drafted by Sarah Palin’s nanny speechwriter.

I know of no-one – the Prime Minister included – who approves of the attempt to use parliamentary privilege to escape prosecution. The issue of privilege in general is one that is of great concern and interest and should be publicly debated. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for politicians, let alone the Prime Minister himself, to seek to interfere in a criminal case that is currently active.

What’s more, the final decision as to whether the accused individuals are able to resort to privilege is not a political decision to be made by ministers; it is a legal one to be decided by the courts, one that must be taken in accordance with statute as it existed at the time of the alleged offences.

So should we be surprised that Cameron, under pressure from his own party because of the recent narrowing of the poll gap and his poor performances at PMQs, has resorted to this kind of desperate tactic? Of course not. None of the parties has emerged well from the expenses scandal, but Cameron obviously believes that a narrative of “a plague on all your houses” might be converted to “this happened on Labour’s watch” so long as he affects a tone of wounded outrage and indignation, implausible and unjustified thought that may be.

OKAY, I admit it – I’ve been itching to use that headline for months.

IT’S BEEN a tough year for an awful lot of people.

I’ve been moved by the public outpouring of support for British soldiers in Aghanistan, particularly in these last few months. My heart goes out to all the families of service men and women who lost their lives in the past 12 months and who face the ringing in of the New Year with an empty place round the family table

And it’s been a bloody awful year economically for far too many of our fellow citizens and their families, trying to cope with unemployment or even the loss of their homes.

And God knows it’s been a traumatic and humiliating year for MPs. The difference between us – MPs – and the two previous groups mentioned, of course, is that we brought our misfortunes on ourselves and can’t blame anyone else for them.

So, here’s to a better New Year, to the safe return home of all our service personnel, and to better ecoomic news – not just for politicians and statisticians but, far more importantly, for ordinary men and women.

And, yes, here’s hoping for a New Year when MPs can start to rebuild the trust we have lost.

So to every one of my readers, let me wish you and your families a very happy, safe and prosperous 2010.

HARRIET Harman made a statement today announcing legislation to implement Christopher Kelly’s recommendations on MPs’ expenses and allowances.

The statement includes this:

The Committee recommends that the practice of permitting a Westminster MP simultaneously to sit in a devolved legislature should be brought to an end, ideally by the time of the elections to the three devolved legislatures for May 2011.

No-one I’ve spoken to can see any sense behind this. Movement of members between the devolved assemblies and Westminster has done no harm whatsoever to the body politic. I would say it has positively enhanced it. Personally, I have no problem, for example, with Alex Salmond fulfilling mandates as both an MSP and an MP. Had this rule been in place before now, he would have been prevented from becoming an MSP in 2007 while retaining his Westminster seat. Certainly, that would have benefited my own party, but this shouldn’t be about partisan politics. We should encourage MPs and MSPs, MAs and MLAs to consider, at any point in their careers, whether they might serve the public better as elected members in another chamber.

This proposal is undemocratic; if the electors of Gordon, in the full knowledge that Alex Salmond is already representing the constituency of Banff and Buchan at Westminster, still wish to elect him, then that is their right – a right not to be second-guessed or scorned by anyone else, including Kelly.

It’s also petty; it’s addressing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. The House of Commons would undoubtedly benefit from the experience of those who had previously served (and are currently serving) in a devolved body, just as the Scottish Parliament and the assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland might benefit from having MPs seek election to them.

By all means, prevent someone from serving continuously in two places; oblige them to stand down at the next available election, if necessary.

Of course, it would still be possible for politicians to resign their seats and then stand elsewhere. But most people, when choosing to move on to another post, will only do so when they have a firm job offer. It seems that in tat least this respect, Kelly would prefer that MPs are treated very differently from our constituents.

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?

WE NEED fewer MPs, the received wisdom states. David Cameron has suggested that the Commons needs to be reduced by the suspiciously round number of ten per cent. Sir John Baker, former head of the Senior Salaries Review Board, was last week hoping that his call for the number of MPs to be cut by about a third would mitigate his crime of calling for a big payrise for those remaining.

Now today the unpleasant Minette Marin at the Sunday Times is sneering her way through yet another article demanding that the number of MPs is reduced.

To sum up the arguments currently in vogue: everyone hates MPs, so there should be fewer of them. And that’s it.

There may well be arguments in favour of reducing the size of the Commons, but if “we don’t like the ones already there” is the best you can do, then we should just get used to the existing number.

What about actually looking at an MP’s job before deciding we don’t need the current number? How many Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation) committees are held each day the Commons is sitting? How many standing committees, grand committees, select committees?

In constituencies, are electors complaining that MPs hold too many surgeries, or too few? Do they complain about seeing too much of their representatives or too little?

By all means examine the way the Commons operates and decide how many MPs are needed to make it function effectively. But to claim there should be fewer of us because we’re unpopular makes about as much sense as claiming that an appropriate response to the expenses scandal is to introduce proportional representation.

“We have to many politicians!” is the cry. “Look at the American House of Reprsentatives – 435 members representing a population of 250 million.”

Well, yes, but have you seen the staffing numbers for each Congressman? Have you seen how much it costs to run state-level legislatures and state senators’ offices?

If the aim of a reduction is to reduce the cost of politics, think again: fewer MPs means fewer – and bigger – constituencies. Bigger constituencies mean bigger workloads and increased staffing and administrative budgets for MPs.

I SPENT a pleasant 20 minutes or so in the company of the amiable John Pienaar of Radio 5 Live this afternoon. I was his guest on his regular weekly podcast.

Subjects covered included expenses (natch) and Afghanistan. Disappointingly, we didn’t get round to talking about my “Save General Election night” EDM.

Listen to it here.

GORDON Brown made an unintended (but rather good) attempt at stand-up poetry on Monday night as he addressed the Parliamentary Party:

It has been a difficult time, a difficult day
And difficult letters are on the way

So is this a new development in political communication, I wonder? At the risk of encouraging some unprintable attempts at similar rhymes from readers, may I suggest this for David Cameron:

It’s Gordon Brown, not me, who’s failing
I do hope someone’s told Chris Grayling

Or how about this for Nick Clegg:

Why can’t everyone be as pure as me?
The voters would thank, not moan at us
Yes they’re less honest than I
But I’m going home to cry
Cos I can’t find a rhyme for “sanctimonious”

Okay, folks – do your worst. But please remember, this is a family blog.

THERE’S nothing quite like having to make a phone call to BT to make me feel depressed.

Following the expenses scandal, I decided I had better make sure all my own receipts for phone bills from the constituency office were in order. So weeks ago I asked BT to send me paper bills which properly itemised exactly what I was paying each month (the internet versions were incomprehensible to me and made no reference to the monthly payment plan I’ve had for years).

Helpfully, they sent me a statement which read: “There is no change required to your monthly payment plan at present.” There was no reference to what I’m actually paying under the plan.

Yeah, that’s really helpful; I can see the Fees Office accepting that as proof that I’ve paid out a specific sum for phone calls. So, unwisely, I called BT to ask if they could send me more details. I say “unwisely”, because as I write, the call is continuing. I’ve been on hold for 17 minutes now. This is how the call started, after I’d introduced myself as the MP for Glasgow South:

Me: Could you send me out an itemised bill so I can prove how much the monthly payment is for?

BT: Which county council do you represent?

Me: I don’t. We don’t have county councils in Scotland.

BT: So whereabouts in the Scottish Parliament…-

Me: I’m not a member of the Scottish Parliament.

BT: Are you an MSP?

Me: No, I’m a Member of Parliament. You know, the House of Commons?

BT: What exactly is it you need?

Me: The latest statement you sent me just reads: “There is no change required to your monthly payment plan at present.” I don’t think I can claim reimbursement based on that. I need an actual figure.

BT: I’ll have to transfer you. You should call 0800 *** ****.

Me: I did. You picked it up.

BT: Oh. Can you hold?

Me: Sure.

Ten minutes later, I started writing this post, and a couple of minutes ago a very helpful person from BT corporate affairs came on the line. She assured me she’ll get it sorted out, but why on earth does it need someone from corporate affairs to organise the printing out of a bill? It’s extremely frustrating to have to jump through hoops simply to get a very simple and straightforward piece of information. And the problem is, with BT, I’ve come to expect it.

I WAS 20 years old when I decided that I wanted to devote my life to politics. For me that didn’t just mean having the ambition to be elected one day as an MP; it meant wanting to make a contribution to the benefit of my country.

That sounds pompous, doesn’t it? I agree, it does. But it was and is true, so I don’t care.

The men and women I work with, people from different parties, are some of the best individuals I’ve ever had the privilege to meet or work with. Some of those people, the ones I describe as among the “best”, were fingered in the Great Expenses Scandal of ‘09. Nevertheless, my and others’ respect and liking for them remains. Many who were caught up in that exposé have decided to call it a day at the next election, as have many others who emerged from the episode relatively or entirely unscathed.

That is a matter of great regret, for me as well as, I suspect, for them. The House of Commons is not a den of thieves, of “troughers”, to use one of the less imaginative and attractive epithets in common usage. I can put it no better than Tony Blair did in his last appearance at the despatch box on 27 June, 2007:

Some may belittle politics but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skulduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes.

Those comments, of course, were made before this year’s expenses scandal. I wonder if Tony would still have made them if the scandal had come first? I hope he would have, because they are as true today as they ever have been.

There is no shortage of those who want to disparage politicians and politics. They are wrong. But it is difficult to make a case for politics in the current climate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.

Because politics is a noble and honourable pursuit. It was so at other times in our history when the public and the media held us in contempt. As I’m fond of reminding interviewers, when the Houses of Parliament burned to the ground in 1834, a crowd gathered on the other side of the Thames and cheered. Colleagues who fret that public esteem of politicians is at a dangerous low should bear in mind that, although it’s necessary to try to improve public opinion, they should manage their expectations; politicians have always been despised. We will always be despised. Sometimes the degree of contempt waxes and wanes throughout the years and through events. But we will never be loved. That is not why we’re in public life.

We are in public life because, as I said at the start, we want to make a contribution to the benefit of our country, to the condition of our fellow citizens. Every single MP I know does that in his or her working life every week; we communicate, we ask questions (of our constituents as well as of ministers), we lobby on behalf of the people we represent, and, on far more occasions than we’re ever credited for, we help people. We make a positive difference. We do good, and we work hard doing it.

Those are the realities of life as an MP. We’re not saints, nor should we be. Neither are we villains. We’re ordinary people who have been given an extraordinary opportunity.

There have been points in recent weeks when MPs have felt less than proud of our vocation (or profession, if you prefer). I’ve even felt the need to apologise to those who ask me what I do for a living. And I was wrong, because there is no reason to apologise for the fact of being an MP, of being chosen by your party and then your constituents to perform an important job.

One colleague, the day before the House rose for the recess, asked some of us, in all seriousness, how we would respond if asked by people we might might meet on holiday what we do for a living. It was his genuine concern about the anticipated negative reactions to his mumbled, apologetic confession of “I’m an MP” that inspired me to write this post. Because my colleague is a good guy. He should be proud of who he is and what he does.

I will never again be reluctant to advise young people in my local schools to go into politics. If you want to make that difference in people’s lives, in the life of our nation, there’s no better way — there’s no alternative, in fact — to taking a deep breath, holding your nose (if you feel you must) and taking the plunge into party politics. I will, however, advise them to avoid it unless they know they can develop a thick skin.

There. That’s what I think. I should have said it long ago. Do your worst.