ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

The Tory leadership will oppose Gordon Brown's reform of MPs' expenses

8pm Update: The BBC News Channel has just featured a clip of David Cameron speaking after the meeting, in which he said:

"He [the Prime Minister] is wedded to a system where you pay MPs to turn up and do their job... it's completely untransparent and I don't think the British public will accept that." 

8.30pm Update: Sky News has just played a further clip of David Cameron saying:

"What we should do is get rid of the second home allowance and instead have a transparent parliamentary allowance where we say you only get money - and less money than is available at the moment - if you produce receipts for a very strictly controlled number of things. I want no more claiming for stamp duty or furniture or flat screen televisions or patio heaters. Let's deal with the abuses that way. And let's have a clear declaration from all MPs, this is where I live and this is why I require expenses to allow me to do my job."

Sky report that the Conservatives will table a motion in the Commons next week proposing the allowance as described by Mr Camron above, which will only allow MPs to claim for rent, utility bills, council tax and mortgage interest payments on a second home. In addition, husband and wife MPs will only be able to claim once.

---

Immediately after a post-Budget address to Conservative MPs early this evening, David Cameron dashed off to the meeting with Gordon Brown to discuss the proposals on MPs' expenses and allowances which the Prime Minister announced yesterday.

In the wake of that meeting, a Tory source has told ConservativeHome tonight that the party leadership will oppose Brown's reform of expenses. After what was described as an "unsatisfactory" meeting with the Prime Minister, the leadership has decided that Mr Brown's proposed daily allowance does not give taxpayers sufficient value for money or transparency.

The Conservatives are prepared to support certain measures such as the removal of second home  allowances for ministers in grace and favour properties - a reform which was in fact first proposed by David Cameron - but want voters to be able to Google MPs' expenses.

The leadership has not yet decided how to whip Tory MPs on the issue (although traditionally such issues would be decided on a free vote).

Jonathan Isaby

David Cameron welcomes many of Brown's proposals on MPs' allowances - because he proposed them in the first place

David Cameron has put out a statement and done a round of TV interviews in response to Gordon Brown's proposals on MPs's allowances, which he announced through a YouTube video this morning.

David Cameron's basic point is that this is a "significant and very welcome U-turn" by Gordon Brown, since he had already made a number of these proposals and sought a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss them - but he had previously been rebuffed by Brown on the grounds that the Committee on Standards in Public Life was conducting its review.

He said:

“This is a big u-turn by the Prime Minister. We had been calling for a meeting. We now have one. We called for a ban on Ministers claiming second home allowances when they enjoy a grace and favour home. He is now proposing this. We argued MPs’ staff should be directly employed. He is now proposing this.

 “Nevertheless, there are some real issues and problems with a daily allowance. However, I agree that something has to be done without delay and so will discuss it with the Prime Minister. 

“At the meeting, I will also be pushing for further reforms. These include the abolition of the communications allowance, a reduction in the number of MPs and a clear commitment to a reduction in the overall cost of politics.”

As Mr Cameron said in his statement above, he has concerns about the notion of a per day allowance, but has said elsewhere that Parliament has "got to replace the status quo" and that he will discuss anything that could be an improvement on the status quo.

Incidentally, it has not gone unnoticed around Westminster that apart from a few infamous Labour examples, such as Labour's Ann Keen in Brentford and Isleworth, the vast majority of MPs in Outer London and the constituencies in the South East - who will lose out as a result of making those with seats "within travelling distance" of Westminster ineligible for the daily allowance - are Conservatives. Do not underestimate the political calculations which Gordon Brown has taken on this.

Jonathan Isaby

MPs to vote on interim proposals on expenses and allowances "as early as next week"

David Cameron called for an urgent meeting with Gordon Brown to discuss MPs' expenses at the last PMQs before the Easter recess.

Gordon Brown prevaricated, suggesting that "to restore public confidence in the matter the Committee [o Standard in Public Life] will have to complete its review..."

So it seems that the Prime Minister has conducted something of a U-turn by rushing to announce a series of interim changes to MP's expenses and allowances, which he wants the Commons to vote on "as early as next week".

He announced the news by way of this Downing Street webcast, during which at times he has a bizarre grin fixed on his face, and proceeds to trip over words as he rushed to read the autocue.

The measures he is proposing are:

• The Additional Costs (ie second home) Allowance to be replaced by a daily allowance linked to attendance at the Commons;
• Ministers with grace-and-favour homes to not be able to claim the daily allowance;
• MPs living within "travelling distance" of Westminster to be given a London weighting instead of getting the daily allowance;
• MPs' staff to be direct employees of the House of Commons; and
• Full disclosure on payments to MPs from second jobs.

PoliticsHome has the full text of Harriet Harman's statement on the issue, which also includes the proposal to "increase the contribution required from MPs by around £60 per month for the current year and to extend the scheme’s pension limit of two thirds of final salary to all scheme members for future service".

It also states that none of this will apply to Northern Ireland MPs pending further inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Is this related to the fact that Sinn Fein MPs not attending the Commons would therefore forfeit their ability to fund their homes in London?

I have now written this separate CentreRight post on the Northern Irish issue.

Brown said he wants to discuss these proposals with the other party leaders with the aim of reaching a consenus.

Reaction from the Conservatives will appear here when we have it. is here.

Jonathan Isaby

Will Sinn Féin sell its 'principles' for £500,000?

Yesterday I urged David Cameron to clear his diary and write his own solution to the crisis that threatens to destroy MPs' standing.  Mr Cameron's Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson has given him one component of that solution: Sinn Féin MPs should end their boycott of Westminster and represent their constituents OR lose their taxpayer-funded allowances. They must be forced to abandon their 'principled' opposition to sitting in the House of Commons or they must abandon the UK taxpayers' allowances.

This morning's Daily Mail reported that "Sinn Fein MPs claim £500,000 of your money to pay for London flats (even though they never go to Parliament)."

Tim Montgomerie

Owen Paterson provides this information by way of background: "The issue of paying allowances to elected Members of Parliament who do not take their seats is not part of the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements.  The issue was raised by Sinn Féin in 1997 with the then Speaker Betty Boothroyd, who refused permission on grounds that the House of Commons did not permit what she described as “associate membership”.  The Labour Government returned to this issue in 2001 and whilst the then leader of the House, Robin Cook, confirmed that this was a House of Commons matter, through the mechanism of a motion in Parliament, certain allowances were voted through by the Labour majority.  The then Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Quentin Davies, bitterly opposed this.  His successor, David Lidington, consistently stated his opposition saying that “Sinn Féin MPs should not be paid parliamentary salaries or be allowed to claim expenses while they refuse to take their seats in parliament.” The referendums in 1998 legitimised the current political arrangements. Meanwhile, Sinn Féin have dropped their policy of abstentionism in the Dáil and at Stormont."

David Cameron should clear his diary and propose a new system for MPs' pay and expenses

Most of our MPs are decent, public-spirited citizens but that is not how many millions of Britons now see them.  The collapse in their standing could not have happened at a worse time.  Over the next few years the House of Commons will have to make some very tough decisions on tax and spend but it has rarely been so lacking in moral authority.  A Populus poll for today's Times finds that more than two-thirds of voters think that all or a majority of MPs abuse their expenses.  Today's Express leads on the fact that taxpayers subsidise MPs' cups of tea.  Guido is blogging that he is "digging into a whole new seam of scams that have come to his notice."  The anti-politician narrative is relentless.

Someone needs to get a grip of this.  David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown at last week's PMQs to meet him and Nick Clegg as a matter of urgency and fix the problem on a cross-party basis.  Brown was too busy with his G20 summitry to respond properly.  At the weekend David Cameron took one specific issue into his own hands and pledged that no Conservative minister with a grace-and-favour residence would claim expenses for a second home. Good stuff and not the first time that the Conservative leader has led on this issue of standards in public life but enough? No.

David Cameron is quite rightly taking a few days off this week.  While he is away his aides should be preparing a series of proposals for root-and-branch reform of MPs' pay and expenses.  The aim should be to devise a system which sees MPs paid fairly and transparently and under which the total bill for the taxpayer is smaller than under the present system.  Proposing such a system should now be Mr Cameron's number one priority.  He should clear his diary so that he can scrutinise his aides' proposals and consult senior colleagues.  He can promise to enact the new regime as soon as he becomes Prime Minister.  Only with MPs' moral authority restored can they get on with the much more important work of saving Britain from fiscal crisis.

Tim Montgomerie

MPs' moral authority to preside over public spending cuts

The above has been a preoccupation of mine for a couple of weeks now.  I suggested that a temporary 5% cut in MPs' pay and a temporary 10% cut in ministers' pay would help give the House of Commons the moral authority to preside over the public spending cuts that 94% of Tory members think are necessary.  Unfortunately only 40% of Tory members support a 5% cut in MPs' pay during a period of public sector austerity.  Hmmm.  Over at his indispensable blog, John Redwood may have come up with a better idea.  He writes:

"The government should require all MPs to cut their total expenses by 10% in 2009-10. It would not be that difficult, especially for those of my colleagues spending over the average. Indeed, why not ask the big spenders to cut by more? Then, armed with the modest moral authority that would bring, the government should demand a 10% cut in all the other administrative overheads of the public sector."

It's not a full solution to the problem of allowances (Tory MP James Clappison is now under fire) but it's a good component of the coming squeeze on state spending and for that reason I second the Rt Hon gentleman for Wokingham.

Tim Montgomerie

David Cameron pledges that no Conservative minister with a grace-and-favour residence would claim expenses for a second home

Another Sunday and another set of papers full of stories about MPs' allowances and expenses, on the back of last week's revelations about Jacqui Smith's husband's taste in films and the publication this week of MPs' allowance claims for 2007-2008.

David Cameron raised the subject at PMQs on Wednesday when he demanded an urgent meeting of the party leaders so thrash out ideas for reform and he tries to further seize the initiative on the issue with an article in today's Mail on Sunday.

His headline promise it that he would not allow ministers to claim the second home allowance if they already have a second home provided by the State (as many Labour ministers have been doing, and doubtless Tory ministers in previous Governments too):

"If elected, I will make sure no Conservative Minister with a grace-and-favour residence in London would be allowed to make a claim for a second home - and that would, of course, include me."

He floats two ways in which more general abuse of the second home allowance could be stopped:

"We could radically tighten the existing allowance, with a proper declaration from MPs about where they live and why they need this allowance and clear restrictions on what can and cannot be spent, ending the idea that these allowances can be used for an endless stream of plasma televisions.

"Alternatively, we could replace it with a sum of money that would cost less than the current system. The Prime Minister's suggestion of an allowance for every day an MP attends Parliament is one variant of this. I am sceptical about a solution which pays MPs to turn up to do their job. But whatever the solution, it just needs resolving."

Tory members reject the idea of a temporary cut in MPs' pay

A little while ago I recommended a 5% temporary cut in MPs' pay as a sign of moral leadership from Parliament during a time when the public sector would need to be slimmed down.

I put the idea to the grassroots in the end-March survey of the Tory grassroots but I got something of a raspberry returned to me.  Only 40% supported the measure.  Only slightly more - 41% - supported my idea of a 10% cut in ministers' pay during the same period of austerity.

Only 19% supported a "ban on Tory frontbenchers pursuing outside paid interests while in opposition" and 42% supported a "one-third reduction in MPs' own pension benefits"; something proposed by Mark Field.

More popular was a "reduction in the number of MPs to 500 from the current 650".  58% supported that reduction in the number of elected politicians.

Where there was overwhelming support was for a "root-and-branch reform of the allowances received by MPs".  A whopping 96% supported that.

Earlier this week David Cameron urged the Prime Minister to take action on MPs' allowances NOW and not put the issue to another review.  During a Five Live phone-in, the Tory leader also appeared sympathetic to the idea of MPs being fined if they misused allowances.  Over at CentreRight today, Jonathan Isaby highlights an idea from Tory councillor Ian McCord.

Tim Montgomerie

Philip Hollobone MP still employs no staff and five Tory MPs claimed no housing allowance whatsoever last year

Today the House of Commons has published the table of MPs' allowances for 2007-08.

The expenditure on housing, staffing, office and communications allowances can be viewed here and travel expenditure can be viewed here.

They are not in excel format so are not easy to sort, but several little nuggets intially jump out at me: Thanks to Norm Brainer for pointing out this link which does have them in Excel format!

Kettering Tory MP Philip Hollobone (pictured above) remains the one MP not to employ any staff as a matter of course. He claimed a mere £400 in staffing costs, whereas most if his colleagues spent the lion's sagre of the £90,505 available. I have stated my views about this before here.

Only nine of the 570 MPs with constituencies outside of London claim not a penny to cover a second home, of which five are Conservatives:

• Adam Afriyie (Windsor)
• Richard Benyon (Newbury)
• Philip Dunne (Ludlow)
• Anne Milton (Guildford)
• Rob Wilson (Reaing East)

The four non-Conservaitves are Celia Barlow (Lab, Hove), David Howarth (Lib Dem, Cambrudge), Geoffrey Robinson (Lab, Coventry North West) and Martin Salter (Lab, Reading West).

Eight MPs claimed absolutely nothing in travel expenses, of which two were Conservatives:

• Adam Afriyie (Windsor)
• Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham)

The six non-Conservatives were George Galloway (Respect, Bethnal Green and Bow), Ann Keen (Lab, Brentford and Isleworth), Susan Kramer (Lib Dem, Richmond Park), Tony McNulty (Lab, Harrow East), Nick Raynsford (Lab, Greenwich adn Woolwich) and Emily Thornberry (Lab Islington South and Finsbury).

Jonathan Isaby

The Jacqui Smith case highlights the need for an urgent review into MPs' expenses

The revelations over the weekend that the taxpayer had footed the bill for Jacqui Smith's husband's viewing of adult movies only goes to demonstrate how urgent it is that the system of what MPs can and can't claim allowances for is reviewed.

(By the way, why should it matter that the movies in question were of an adult nature? The taxpayer shouldn't have been paying regardless of the content, even if he'd only been watching Bambi.)

I take the view that MPs should be suitably compensated for the additional costs involved in doing the job of an MP properly, and for most that will inevitably involve the need to have a second home.

But with a minority of MPs seemingly taking advantage of what's available, it is going to take a considerable overhaul of the system and an increase in transparency before there's any chance that the public will believe that not all MPs are on the make, as indeed they are not.

David Cameron is not calling for Jacqui Smith’s head over her use of expenses to pay for her family's choice of television and films, preferring to describe it as "deeply embarrassing", though adding that she has "some questions to answer over the second home issue”.

Jonathan Isaby

Cameron must be first to champion the anti-politician mood

Right and Left seem to be saying the same thing.

The public is angry at a political class that doesn't understand the pain that ordinary families are going through.  Polly Toynbee will hate me for saying this but parts of her column in today's Guardian read like a press release from the TaxPayers' Alliance: "No one in the public sector should get more than £150,000," she writes, "In the present mood, all wise public bodies should rapidly cut their own top pay."

David Cameron and George Osborne were one day ahead of Polly.  The Tory leader has expressed "astonishment" that 68 members of the quangocracy earn more than the Prime Minister.  Mr Osborne, as Chancellor, will veto any quango that wants to grant such a remuneration package in future.  He writes about his plan in The Sun.

It is right that David Cameron promises to end fat cattery.  The public resented the excess during comfortable times.  They are going to detest it as unemployment mounts.  Capping the pay of the biggest public sector earners will be popular and necessary but it's only a drop in the ocean of Britain's debt challenge.  Across-the-board cuts in public spending are going to be necessary to save the UK's public finances - something which the public understands.  

Politicians need moral authority to oversee these cuts.

If charity begins at home, so, too, must austerity.  David Cameron must show that MPs and ministers will make personal sacrifices as they demand sacrifices of others.  I was interested to read the largely positive response to my suggestion of yesterday that MPs and ministers take a lead with a temporary pay cut.  It's hard to think of many other things that would more powerfully communicate an incoming Conservative government's intent to restore responsibility to the public sector.  On Monday I'll ask a specific question in the monthly members' survey to get the measure of all grassroots opinion.

Many MPs will strongly oppose a pay cut - albeit temporary - but I'm sure David Cameron would have public opinion on his side if any choose to protest too much.  If the Tory Party has anything like a Clause IV moment, this could be it.

Tim Montgomerie

MPs must lead the way in preparing for the 'austerity Parliament'

BBC1's Question Time didn't go well for Eric Pickles last night.  He was defending MPs' second allowances and didn't do a good job.  PoliticsHome recorded the grisly details.

ConHome is a BIG fan of the new Party Chairman but last night was something of a train wreck.

It's vital that the Conservative Chairman and the wider Tory Party understand the level of public anger towards the political class.  It's also necessary that MPs show a lead in preparing the way for cut backs in the public sector.

I'm about to lose favour with every Tory MP but there is no way that MPs can keep their pay and their allowances while the public sector is being slimmed down.

Caroline Spelman to keep shadow cabinet post after found guilty of only inadvertent breaches

So reports the Daily Mail:

"Senior Tory Caroline Spelman is set to keep her shadow cabinet job after a report into the "Nannygate" affair found her guilty only of inadvertent breaches of Commons rules. Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon was mildly critical of her but concluded there were "grey areas" on current rules, sources said."

The BBC is, however, saying that she will be ordered to repay some money.

I'm delighted for Caroline Spelman. Let the matter rest there.  Having watched what Betsy Duncan Smith went through in the investigation of her work for her husband, I should imagine recent long months have been gruelling.

Tim Montgomerie

Wednesday morning update:

• CCHQ has supplied me with a briefing on 'nannygate' and it's worth publishing a few of its components here:
• The Commissioner found that ‘Mrs Haynes had the necessary ability to do the job in terms of her personal skills’ and that ‘Mrs Haynes did undertake the work of an administration assistant which Mrs Spelman asked her to do’ and for which she was paid.
• The Commissioner accepted that Mrs Haynes ‘was available to work for 18 hours a week’ and dismissed the allegation that Mrs Haynes did not work 18 hours a week as an administration assistant.
• The Commissioner ‘received striking evidence of Mrs Spelman’s personal integrity, probity and standing in the community and among her colleagues’.
• He also noted that she ‘found an arrangement that worked for her as a new Member of Parliament and for her family. Were it not for the way she apportioned the remuneration between the dual roles, it was…a perfectly reasonable arrangement to have made at the time and in all the circumstances’.
• He found that ‘in the rush of business, Mrs Spelman did not consider separately what would be a reasonable remuneration including pay for nannying duties and what pay was necessary solely to support her in her parliamentary duties’ and that the effect of breaching the rules was ‘unintended’.

Mrs Spelman issued this statement:

"I fully accept the findings of this inquiry which I sought because I wanted the opportunity to clear my name.  I am glad the committee finds that the work done by Tina Haynes met a genuine need for an assistant in the constituency, that she was qualified to do the job and that the work was done. However, as the Committee notes, the arrangements had the unintended effect of misapplying some of my Parliamentary allowances for non-Parliamentary purposes, for which I am sorry. This is a finding which I take very seriously and I will of course immediately pay the money in question back. The Committee makes clear that this breach of the rules on my part was unintended. It took place more than a decade ago when I was a new MP. But I apologise sincerely for it: I fully accept people have a right to expect the highest standards from people in public life."

Could Gordon Brown save Caroline Spelman?

1pm Update: I understand that at its meeting this morning, the Standards Committee was unable to come to a conclusion as to what decision to take over Caroline Spelman's case. As such, I gather that the committee chairman, Sir George Young, intends using the next week to take soundings from among the committee with the aim of forging a consensus by the time the committee meets again next Tuesday. The report on Gordon Brown, meanwhile, is expected to be published this Thursday.

---

The Press Association reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, has finally passed on to the Commons Standards Committee the conclusions of his inquiry into Caroline Spelman's use of parliamentary allowances to pay a nanny-cum-secretary for two years during the late 1990s when she was first elected to Parliament.

The then party chairman referred herself to the Commissioner last June in order to seek exoneration and has had the case hanging over her ever since.

But it is interesting that the Commissioner has reached his conclusions about Mrs Spelman at the same time as another lengthy investigation into another high-profile parliamentarian, namely the Prime Minister.

As the Mail reported at the weekend, Mr Lyon has also just passed on his file on the complaint made by Tory MP Greg Hands a year ago about Gordon Brown's failure to declare his subletting of part of a constituency office to his local Labour Party.

At this moment in time, without any conclusions having been announced, both Caroline Spelman and Gordon Brown remain innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise.

However, if the scenario were to play out in which both politicians are found to have broken rules, I suspect that we would see a "gentlemen's agreement" between both Labour and Conservative parties not to make political capital out of either case - whereas if either Mrs Spelman or Mr Brown were found to have breached rules as an isolated news story, there would be calls for sackings, resignations etc.

If that does happen, there would surely be further accusations of members of the political class protecting each other. However, we must wait and see what the Standards Committee concludes first. But it's a thought.

Jonathan Isaby

Ed Vaizey questions future of ministerial car

This comes from Ed Vaizey MP's blog:

"I am guessing the annual cost today [of a ministerial car] is at least £100,000 - that’s almost £10 million a year for ministers’ cars.  I suspect it is much higher overall - most senior officials have them as well as the heads of the major quangos. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the Government Car Service cost between £50 million and £100 million.

Who needs these cars?  The PM obviously, for security.  I would make a case for the most senior ministers - Chancellor, Defence, Foreign and Home, as you would have to know exactly where they were if a crisis, say another 7/7, hit.  After that, I can’t think why you would need one - an Oyster card, second clas rail ticket and the odd cab should suffice.  The idea that you are transporting secret Government papers is a total conceit, and can only really be carried off by Cabinet Ministers, and perhaps home, foreign, treasury and defence ministers.

So perhaps we should announce a hiring freeze for the Government Car Service, and reduce it in size over the lifetime of the next Parliament."

Well said Ed.  As the axe falls across the public sector it's vital that ministers and politicians take a lead in the necessary austerity.

Tim Montgomerie

I''m grateful for PoliticsHome's indispensable Green Box of breaking political news for this story:

Grayling promises to end police's reliance on cautions for violent offences

According to The Sunday Telegraph, Chris Grayling promises to end the police's increasing use of cautions for violent offenders.

Noting a 28% increase in the use of cautions over the last five years Mr Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, says:

"If you are found carrying a knife, if you attack a stranger in the street, you should end up in the courts and then behind bars. You should not get a caution, or as I heard recently, a £65 penalty notice for carrying a three foot Samurai sword around. That must stop."

Mr Grayling may, however, face some headlines for the wrong reasons tomorrow.  The Sunday Mirror reports that he has claimed £100,000 for a London flat he is 'rarely seen in'.  There is no suggestion of anything illegal but the newspaper's Vincent Moss is noting a substantial capital gain for Mr Grayling on the flat for which the allowance is claimed plus the fact that his £1.5m constituency home is just 17 miles away.

11am Sunday: This comment from Phil Taylor is worth highlighting:

"Clearly the Mirror has no idea about London/Surrey geography or South East public transport. Either that or they are banking on their readers having no idea. Late at night after a debate or doing some political engagement the idea of walkng over to Waterloo and getting a train to Epsom and then maybe a cab or a lift from the wife from the station at 12.30am or 1am does not sound attractive. It would probably involve a door-to-door journey of 1.5 hours. A black cab would cost about £80 and still involve a 40 minute journey. I only live about 7 miles from central London in Ealing but I always leave an hour to get from here to the West End door-to-door. Having a second home is one thing, it helps get the job done. Calling a room in your sister's house your main residence is just plain lying."

William Hague: We oppose any change to EU rules on freedom of movement

1.15pm update: Read the BBC transcript of the interview here

---

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague was the Tory guest on the Andrew Marr Show this morning and the lead topic of discussion was the wildcat strikes going on in protest at workers from elsewhere in the European Union being brought in to work at a Lincolnshire refinery.

Mr Hague said that "strikes are never the way forward" but accused Gordon Brown of dishonesty when he talked about "British jobs for British workers" in 2007:

"When Gordon Brown said 'British jobs for British workers' it was a fiction... because there is freedom of movement of workers within the European Union [apart from the exceptions for Bulgaria and Romania]... It was unbelievably ridiculous and silly [of Gordon Brown to make that claim]."

He said that the Conservatives would be against any change in the free movement of workers as it was an aspect of the single market that they "strongly support".  Tim Montgomerie argued for its retention yesterday.

On one of the other the other big stories of the day - potentially banning all MPs' outside interests - Mr Hague suggested that Labour were trying to divert attention from the stories about Labour peers allegedly abusing their positions.

"It's an old story from last summer reheated today... to hide embarrassment over these four Labour peers," he said, telling Andrew Marr: "Don't let the Government off the hook here".

Whilst he said that the Conservatives would look at any proposals which were put forward on outside interests, he signalled his opposition to a broad brush ban:

"In principle, let's not be so restrictive that we stop talented people coming in to and staying in politics".

Jonathan Isaby

Further rebuke for Derek Conway

The Standards and Privileges committee of the House of Commons has this morning published a new report into Derek Conway, the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who lost the Tory whip last year over his use of Commons allowances to pay his son for work of which no evidence could be produced. He was first rebuked by the Standards committee one year ago this week.

With publication of this new report, Mr Conway, who now sits as an Independent and will stand down at the next election, has been told to pay back a further £3,757 and apologise to the Commons.

Jonathan Isaby

All Tory MPs will be ordered to fight Labour attempts to keep expenses secret

1PM UPDATE: BROWN BACKS DOWN ON EXPENSES VOTE

As The Guardian reports this morning, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs are set to join forces to vote against Harriet Harman's attempts to exempt MPs from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act - all in a bid to keep some details of their taxpayer-funded expenses secret.

The original Conservative plan had been for only the Tory frontbench to be whipped on this issue but following an agreement between Alan Duncan, the new Shadow Leader of the House, and David Cameron yesterday, all Conservatives MPs will be expected to vote against "one rule for the taxpayer and a different rule for MPs" - as Mr Duncan puts it.  Neither this morning's Times nor Telegraph have caught up with this tightening of the Tory position.

Kate Hoey, David Winnick and Frank Field may lead a rebellion against the Labour whip.

Our congratulations to Alan Duncan on this first judgment call in his new post.

> Join MySociety's Facebook group: I object to MPs concealing their expenses

10am: Louise Bagshawe discusses this issue on CentreRight.

Is it time for another Tory Speaker?

There are two myths propagated about the Speakership of the House of Commons.

One is that there is a convention that it alternates between Conservative and Labour MPs. This is patently not correct, since there were in fact four Conservative MP in a row who served as Speaker between 1928 and 1965.

Secondly, there are those who say that convention states that the Speaker always comes from the benches of the governing party. This was the case for several hundred years - until 1992 when the convention was broken on the election of Labour's Betty Boothroyd.

By modern standards, Speaker Martin has already had a good innings after eight years in the post; the last of his predecessors to serve more than a decade was Edward Fitzroy, who died in office during World War II.

So after a weekend of further speculation about the future of the post's current incumbent - including a BBC survey in which a significant proportion of MPs questioned declared themselves to have lost confidence in Michael Martin - thoughts are turning to the identity of the person who should succeed him, whenever that may be.

On the timing front, I would venture that the sooner a new Speaker can be chosen, the better. By its very nature, the role is supposed to be held by a unifying figure who can command respect across the chamber - this is clearly no longer the case with MPs of all political hues now questioning Speaker Martin's judgements.

So who should take over? From the Labour side, names being talked about include Wales Secretary, Paul Murphy, and one of the current Deputy Speakers, Sylvia Heal. Then there are those who favour ex-Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell.

But there is also a wealth of potential candidates from the Conservative benches. Several knights of the shires have long fancied the role, including Sir George Young, Sir Patrick Cormack and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

There are of course also two Conservative Deputy Speakers in Sir Alan Haslehurst and Sir Michael Lord, of whom the former won many plaudits when he temporarily deputised for Speaker Martin on a full-time basis during a bout of ill health.

And the other Tory name increasingly being talked about on all sides of the House is John Bercow, the MP for Buckingham. Whilst his political journey may have lost him some friends on the Tory benches, it has also gained him widespread respect across the Commons and would in my mind be the ideal choice.

Jonathan Isaby

Shadow cabinet unhappy at Cameron's plan to stop outside interests

The News of the World reports that David Cameron hopes to stop his shadow cabinet from pursuing outside interests as the General Election approaches.  A "source from David Cameron's office" told the newspaper:

“We cannot have potential conflicts of interests as we try to look like a government-in-waiting. However, this is not a popular project and we are getting a lot of resistance. There will come a point when David will have to issue an order but we are worried we could lose some people over this.”

"A senior member of the Shadow Cabinet" commented:

“I don’t want to take a pay cut 18 months before a general election just so it looks good on paper. We all go to extraordinary lengths to ensure there are no conflicts of interests. Some people could lose out on £200,000 a year by this, and I know one or two would walk out if that were imposed now.”

Criticism of the shadow cabinet's outside interests reached a peak in the summer of last year.  The Daily Mail's Ben Brogan worried that a 'part-time' shadow cabinet was being insufficiently energetic in attacking Gordon Brown.

Tory MPs' expenses published

David Cameron's promised transparency reforms are coming into place with the publication of a list of almost all Conservative MPs' staff, employed family members, office running costs and travel/accommodation expenditure incurred by MPs outside of London.

Cameron said:

"Politicians need to do everything they can to regain the trust of the British people, and transparency has a key part to play in that process. We must show that we're spending taxpayers money sensibly and correctly. We are the first party to demand this information from our members, and our MPs are voluntarily revealing a much more detailed breakdown of their expenses than official rules require them to. I'm glad that we're leading the way."

You can download the "right to know" forms by surname: A-E / F-H / I-P / Q-Z

6.15pm: Greg Hands MP on CentreRight: Conservatives setting the agenda on MP and MEP ethics - but we need to go further still

7.30pm: Boulton: "Seven Tory MPs have gone against the wishes of their party leader and refused to publish their expenses for the last 3 months. Sir Paul Beresford, Bill Cash, Christopher Chope, Sir John Stanley, Anthony Steen, Nicholas and Ann Winterton have chosen to ignore David Cameron's call to "show that we're spending taxpayers money sensibly and correctly."

Cameron accuses Brown of bottling it over expenses

David Cameron has accused Brown of a lack of leadership this evening for not attending last night's defeated vote on the expenses reforms that he wanted to go through.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg has gone a step further and committed to unilaterally introducing some of the recommendations of the Members Estimates Committee, such as independent spot checks of MPs expenses and quarterly expenses reports from his "shadow cabinet".

The vast majority of MPs who voted to keep the discredited "John Lewis" status quo were Labour, including thirty-three ministers and Brown's two parliamentary private secretaries. On the Platform today Mark Field MP called for decisions on these matters to be taken away from MPs:

"It seems to me that most MPs simply fail to understand the level of public disbelief at the stream of revelations over the extensive enrichment of parliamentarians courtesy of the allowances and expenses system. All of this has grown like topsy over the past decade as a result of parliament’s repeated reluctance to bite the bullet and increase the MPs’ headline salary.

Indeed even this week the Prime Minster continues to grandstand, by publicly criticising the proposal from an independent body to raise the MPs’ headline salary and put a mechanism for independent future review in place, yet at the same time turn a blind eye to the continued scandalous abuse of the current system. Instead, a culture of cynicism has grown up with an understanding that some of the burgeoning allowances could be siphoned off as the equivalent of salary." 

Caroline Spelman should quit says Portillo

Michael Portillo has said that Party Chairman Caroline Spelman should quit.  The former Defence Secretary made his intervention after it was revealed that Mrs Spelman's former secretary, Sally Hammond, revealed that she was "shocked" at how much Tina Haynes, the nanny, was being paid a decade ago.

A ConservativeHome poll of 955 members (published last Thursday) found that most members thought Mrs Spelman should stand down while her case was being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and that Eric Pickles should succeed her.

We stand by our view that Mrs Spelman will be exonerated and that she should not step down.  To do so would only encourage vexatious complaints against MPs and other public figures.  That hasn't stopped speculation throughout this week that (post-Henley) she may resign.  An announcement could be made as early as today.

David Cameron's monthly press conference

Highlights from David Cameron's monthly press conference, held earlier today:

We're not knights in shining armour: The Sunday newspapers produced even more questions about the ethics of Tory parliamentarians and the Tory leader faced a number of questions from journalists.  He said that Lord Ashcroft's tax status was a matter for him, that new rules regarding the conduct of Tory MEPs would be published within weeks and he promised decisive but fair judgment against anyone found guilty of ethical lapses.  He said there were three main areas of controversy:

• Party funding where the party had proposed a £50,000 cap on donations and had made much progress in evening out its funding base.  He said that more than 130 individuals were now giving £50,000 - reducing the party's dependence on a few big donors.  This was, he said later, in stark contrast to the indebted Labour Party which received more than 90% of its income from trade unions and inevitably discouraged it from taking the necessary hardline against public sector strikers.
• The conduct of MPs: In this area, said David Cameron, codes of transparency had been introduced and transparency was the long-term solution.
• The conduct of MEPs: This was a complicated matter but it was now clear that the "claiming culture" must end.

Mr Cameron said that the Conservatives weren't knights in shining armour - there would be no attempt to repeat Tony Blair's "rubbish" that Conservatives are the new "whiter than white".  We, he said, had been part of the problem but would be part of the solution.

NHS reform: Tomorrow he would be talking about the NHS.  The Conservatives would not engineer another institutional upheaval but would give GPs and patients more choice and would ensure a focus on outcomes, not processes.

Zimbabwe: He said this is the most important issue in the world today and he restated the five point action plan announced by William Hague yesterday.

James McGrath: In response to a question from ConservativeHome's Samuel Coates ("Boris has released a statement saying that James McGrath isn't a racist and that he was taken out of context.  Do you agree with that, and if so do you therefore regret the fact that yet another good man has had to fall on his sword because somebody - in this case a Labour activist - used the 'R' word"?), David Cameron said that he knew James McGrath well, that he was not a racist but that he had made a regrettable lapse of judgment and shouldn't have used the words he did.  Boris acted "rightly" and "quickly" and you have to face the consequences if you make a "terrible misjudgment" in politics.  The BBC has made a video of this exchange, including a a question from the complete opposite perspective by the Guardian's Nick Watt.

Gordon Brown on Margaret Thatcher: The Tory leader said it was "ridiculous" for Labour to blame Margaret Thatcher for social immobility and what a u-turn it was from his greeting of Lady Thatcher on the steps of Downing Street one year ago.  The Government had been in power for ten years and couldn't go on blaming others for its failures.  It hadn't reformed welfare, secondary education and the voluntary sector.  It was to blame for social immobility.