Skip to main content

Home Secretary, Expenses and Suspension

I have for some time been concerned at the tendency to suspend first and ask questions later. The contrast between Jacqui Smith and the police makes this quite clear. This case is about a police officer suspended for 3 years over an allegation that he had fiddled his petrol expenses. It found a mistaken over claim of £90. In the mean time he had been suspended for 3 years.

I think there needs to be some form of sanction such as a process of monitoring someone being investigated rather than simply suspending them. In Jacqui Smith's case she is not being suspended whilst being investigated. This is unfair in comparison with the treatment of the police.

The solution, however, in my view is to look at a different mechanism rather than suspension for circumstances where that is reasonable.

For example on the issue of expenses if someone is being investigated any further claims can be monitored in detail. Then once an investigation has been concluded the appropriate action can be taken, but it does not prejudice the individual.

Suspension is supposed to be non-prejudicial, but it always is - particularly when it lasts for a long time.

There is, of course, the risk element that someone is deemed "a wrong un" and not only fiddles expenses, but also gets involved in bank robbery etc. I don't think that argument justifies the route of suspension.

Whichever way it is the same rule should apply for the police and the Home Secretary. Otherwise it is clearly unfair.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…