Another day, another mess. Yesterday it was the Government's turn to bugger up Parliament.
Under the guise of bringing necessary reform to the payment of MPs' allowances - which is necessary and could have been quite a short Bill - the Government has introduced a whopping ill-thought-through constitutional landmine of a Bill. It would be serious if one thought such a measure would last any time at all on the statue book.
I along with Richard Shepherd divided the House on the second reading - and these votes show whether we agree with the principle of a Bill.
The Government emphasised to the point of tedium that this measure had all Party support. While we only gained a single vote in opposition to the measure, what was devastating for the Government were their numbers. They had only 290 odd.
Given that the Liberals seem to be voting with the Government, and the Government has 349 MPs, they ought to, on that score alone, have registered 412 votes.
Of most significance however was that not a single Tory voted for the measure. If there is a change of Government at the next election this absurd measure will be quickly on the exit chute.
The measure is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Parliamentary Committee that judges these matters has not even had a chance to sit on the Bill, which was published only last Thursday.
New categories of crimes are created for MPs and yet as the Tory spokesperson Dominic Grieve so effectively pointed out, the attempt of the Government to appear extra tough with MPs turns out to be nothing of the kind - although I'm sure that was not the intention.
Currently we have a fraud measure going through Parliament with sentences of up to 10 years. Why in this measure do we create a new offence for MPs but have only a one year maximum sentence?
I centred on the absurdity of insisting that MPs not only declare their part-time earnings - I'm all in favour of that - but having to give an account of the hours worked for these earning is not only demeaning, it is unpractical.
Start the clock . . . egg timers soon to become vital equipment for MPs to measure the time spent on second jobs
This impracticality was brought home to me just before the debate.
A banker asked to see me. He was anxious to discuss the feasibility of whether his village could collectively bid for Gas, Electricity and the other utility supplies thereby pushing down prices.
I immediately saw this was an idea relevant to the mutual of which I am a non-executive director in Liverpool - Medicash. After our meeting I wrote to the Chief Executive to see whether this might give Medicash an additional lease of life.
How do I time that activity? When was I carrying out my MP role and giving advice and at what point should I have clocked on for Medicash?
Of course I could make a return, but would it be honest and accurate? And should we have rules which discourage honesty, we have too many of them in the welfare state and we all know the consequences there.
More importantly, if moonlighting is to be dubbed an offence, why aren't the biggest offenders - Ministers - having to set out how much time they spend on their job as opposed to their duties as an MP?
I suggested we would all have to be given hourglasses so that we could give accurate estimates. But when would I start the hourglass when writing an article? When do the first thoughts come into my head?
The real aim of this measure of course is to drive out of the Commons MPs with other interests. We have no serious trade union leader, business leader, entrepreneur, musician and the only IT innovator - Adam Afriyie - has had to give up this role while he is on the opposition front bench.
This nasty little measure will change what we mean by being a representative in this country, converting it into membership of a very tightly drawn and declining political class.
To help dislodge the whole measure I will refuse to put in the hours worked for my part-time earnings, although I shall attempt to make an estimate for my website.
This will land me with a fine of up to £5,000, which I won't pay. I shall resist the bailiffs taking goods to that effect so finally I will be landed in prison.
I would prefer to spend time honourably with inmates in prison than with a Parliament cowered into submission by a Government that has given up any appearance of knowing the difference between its ear and its elbow.
back