Morning:
9°c
MPs' expenses for the past four years are — officially — available to the public from today.
Yet this belated, grudging and partial concession only goes to demonstrate what a public service was done when the entire database was sold to the Daily Telegraph.
The claims now available are certainly informative — but there are two crucial omissions, for “privacy” and “security” reasons.
Expenses claims that were actually turned down by the Fees Office — which, Heaven knows, swallowed some extraordinarily tendentious applications — are not published, so those small-scale claims for Remembrance Day wreaths and duck houses that were so very illuminating about the character of the claimants would have been kept from public view.
More crucially, MPs' addresses are omitted from the database.
Arguably, there may have been a case for not making this information universally available but allowing only newspapers and other media to have access to it.
But this is precisely the information that makes it possible to see the grossest abuses of the system, whereby MPs played fast and loose with the designation of their main homes so as to maximise their claims and tax allowances — an abuse that occasioned a new verb, to flip.
In the case of Kitty Ussher, who has now resigned as a Treasury minister “for family reasons”, this meant switching her designated main home for a month in order to avoid a capital gains bill.
This, admittedly, was a matter for the tax authorities rather than for the parliamentary fees office but the principle is the same.
The reason why details of MPs' expenses are not being published in full, despite an order from the High Court to do so, is that MPs voted for a change in the law last summer to withhold sensitive data.
The reasons for this self-serving and shabby course are now apparent.
Had the public had access only to the censored database published today, Miss Ussher would still be in her job.
So would many other MPs and ministers. Nearly a dozen have been forced to stand down at the next election and £300,000 worth of allowances have now been repaid.
Yesterday, the retiring Speaker, Michael Martin, referred to MPs' failure last year to set their own house in order.
Now the matter is out of their hands. The real day of reckoning will come when they submit themselves to the judgment of voters at the next general election.
Policing in pairs
It will come as a surprise to many readers to learn that only half of the 31,000 Metropolitan police officers actually patrol the streets.
But the good news is that the number of patrols is to increase.
The Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, has ordered that officers should, where possible, patrol singly rather than in pairs.
This is the equivalent of an extra 176 police on the beat. He also wants more desk-bound officers on the streets.
Sir Paul is right: people are less likely to approach officers in pairs and often in conversation than a single police officer.
And while twosomes are necessary in risky parts of London, they are not justified in safer areas.
The presence of a policeman is both a reassurance to the law;abiding and a deterrent to crime.
Any survey of what the public wants from the police shows we want more of them on the beat, not in cars.
This simple measure shows that Sir Paul is in touch with the public mood.
Concorde on rails
One Japanese invention that most of us envy is their bullet trains.
Now we are to have our own, known as Javelins, operated by Southeastern on the Channel Tunnel line, which will run at up to 140mph.
This is great news, even if fares will be higher on the new service.
There is only one flaw in the plan: ordinary Southeastern commuters face more expensive tickets and a cut in services to pay for the Javelins.
This hardly seems fair but almost halving some journey times is the way ahead.
Reader views (3)
These slimy toads just never give up do they.
All that vast expanse of black ink, is not to protect MPs addresses but to keep as much of the details of their expense con away from us, their pay masters.
If anybody else tried to keep details of their expenses from the bosses who paid them they would be frog march to the door by security "double quick time".
Yes MPs bosses are not their local party chairmen, not their parliamentary party and not even their party leaders.
MPs bosses are those who pay their wages, thats Us the tax payer QED
- Rosieinlondon, London UK, 18/06/2009 22:39
Report abuse
Thank God for the Daily Telegraph.(And I am a lifelong Labour supporter who couldn't with them after six months of Tony Blair) I commend the Telegraph for its service to the nation and to our democracy. The last time I saw this much black ink was when a fascist military dictatorship installed itself in Greece.
- A Macmillan, Volos Greece, 18/06/2009 20:16
Report abuse
Out with them! Say 'No!' to politicians. Look how dishonest they are. Already 180 (out of 646) have paid back a bit. Only a bit, though. And what do they do every day in Westminster? Does anybody know?
- John Problem, Hackney UK, 18/06/2009 19:45
Report abuse
