Howard in Hot Water

As the expenses revelations continue I can’t have been the only one interested to if any dirt would be thrown up around our MP for Folkestone and Hythe the Right ‘Honourable’ Michael Howard. And on June 1 dirt was quite literally what we got with The Telegraph’s ‘Howard’s £17,000 Claims For Gardening’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5418996/MPs-expenses-Michael-Howards-17000-claims-for-gardening.html.

Mr. Howard has not commented at length or in detail on the expenses scandal, nor divulged any of his own claims, stating repeatedly in his columns in the local rags (http://www.michaelhowardmp.com/articles/120509.htm http://www.michaelhowardmp.com/articles/050509.htm) that he will wait for the results of the investigation being carried out by Sir Christopher Kelly, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

If he was hoping to escape the Telegraph investigation, he has failed. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Howard justifies the gardening expenses as ‘within the [much debated] rules’ – for a refresher on the Green Book, see here http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/hocallowances/hocallowances06.cfm (the link to the Green Book is at the bottom of the page in the text). Remember they must be "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties." (p.3)

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) he has long made clear his intention to step down at the next election so we won’t get the chance to cast him out of Parliament. Whilst batting away suggestions he should publish his claims and avoiding detailed comment on his own expenses, Mr. Howard has used his column to repeatedly state that “everything to do with the remuneration of MP’s – pay, pensions, allowances – should be decided independently. MPs should have no say in them”. Changing the rotten system is the focus, rather than MPs who claim for gardening and such like.

However, for all his support that MPs pay and allowances should be decided independently his recent voting shows that the Right ‘Honourable’ member for Folkestone and Hythe does not feel this should extend to employees of MPs. On April 30 Mr. Howard voted AGAINST a motion (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-04-30&number=108&mpn=Michael_Howard&mpc=Folkestone_%26amp%3B_Hythe&house=commons) that

‘…would mean that instead of the MPs receiving an allowance with which they could employ assistants and staff, the employment contracts would be between the staff and Parliament directly, who would pay their wages directly and set standard terms and conditions.’

Perhaps Mr Howard wants to keep a close eye on his office staff. It might be worth mentioning that Mr. Howard employs his wife (a bestselling author and part-time model), although according to The Independent on a salary of less that £10,000 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sixty-tories-claim-16340000-each-to-employ-relatives-869721.html). She may do a fair day’s work, but if the MPs themselves set the terms and conditions, can the voters be expected to trust what they are told or judge what is fair and reasonable?

Again on April 30, Mr Howard voted AGAINST full and complete disclosure of directorships and other remunerated employment, (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-04-30&number=106&mpn=Michael_Howard&mpc=Folkestone_%26amp%3B_Hythe&house=commons), which would have disclosed the following:

· the precise amount of each individual payment made in relation to any interest,
· the nature of the work carried out in return for that payment,
· the number of hours worked during the period to which the payment relates, and,
· the name and address of the person, organisation or company making the payment (except where disclosure of the information would be contrary to any legal or established professional duty of privacy or confidentiality) .

which seems a little suspicious given that on the Register of Members’ Interests (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/michael_howard/folkestone_and_hythe#register) Mr Howard has 5 remunerated directorships, several entries in the ‘remunerated employment, office, profession, etc’.

We are entitled to know this as apart from questions of transparency (which is one of the real issues with expenses), impartiality and possible conflicts of interests, MPs should be performing parliamentary duties. Mr. Howard has stated politics is not for the money, a statement that will be cheapened somewhat if we find out he has been somewhere else for the money rather than representing his constituents' interests. From May 14 2001, Mr Howard has attended around 44% of votes. I wonder if we will find out where he may have been and how much he was earning during his absences.

- update, 2nd June, Telegraph reports Mr Howard has diverted over £44,000 to the Folkestone and Hythe Conservative Association. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5425235/MPs-expenses-Michael-Howard-paid-44000-to-Conservatives.html)