Bugger off, Heffer. Haselhurst gets my vote.

Sir Alan Haselhurst is my MP.

In the list of MP expenses claimants, he is number 582 out of 646. The bastard Heffer wants him out, to which I say, bugger off and stop being an attention-seeking git, Heffer.

Sir Alan has issued a brief statement to the press, but to his constituents he has issued a lengthy statement which, in his defence, I reproduce below in full with some parts emphasised by me. Click here to see the original as a PDF.

____________________________

In view of the strong feelings which have been exposed about MPs’ pay and allowances I feel that I should provide you with some detailed information about my own distinct circumstances. I offer first some clarification. I do not have a country estate. I own a family home in the constituency. It has no swimming pool as alleged in the Daily Mail and no helipad as some local reporters seem to imagine. I do not own any other property. My flat in London is rented. I have even been asked how much income I derive from being a director of a family business. The answer is none. Do I as Member for Saffron Walden need two homes? Yes. First, I gave a commitment at the time of my selection in 1977 that I would buy a property in the constituency. Secondly, the hours of work for an MP at Westminster have been and are quite unlike those of other people who may be up very early in the morning and/or home late at night. Thirdly, for much of my years as your MP, the House of Commons would sit well beyond the time of the last train from Liverpool Street and on many occasions through the night. This did not obviate the need to be present early the next day to ensure that a quorum was maintained in any committees of which you were a member. My own circumstances altered in 1997 when I became Deputy Speaker. This has involved a much greater commitment to be on the premises at Westminster. When the proceedings of the House of Commons depend absolutely and without the option on your being in the Chair, you simply cannot afford to turn up late pleading that there was congestion on the M11 or a train failure at Harlow Town. I am frequently in the Chair until the very last word is spoken and this rules out my catching the last train back. As the employer, the House of Commons has long recognised that MPs do not now come exclusively from the ranks of the wealthy. There is a substantial extra cost in maintaining two homes. So an Additional Costs Allowance was introduced specifically to help Members defray this cost. Its availability has always been a matter of public record. The categories in respect of which claims could be made were as follows:- food, utilities, rent, council tax, telephone, cleaning, services, security, insurance, repairs and maintenance. Between 1977 and 1997 I made claims wholly and exclusively in respect of my London flat which I have rented (not owned) for 36 years.However, in 1997 when I was appointed as Deputy Speaker I was instructed by the House of Commons that I was then the equivalent of a Minister and accordingly my main home was deemed to be in London. It is important to stress that I had no choice in the matter. Any future claims on the Additional Costs Allowance had to relate to my home in the constituency. I made no claim without approval and then only to meet costs genuinely incurred. Obviously the type of cost involved in maintaining a home in the country differed from the costs of maintaining a flat in London. Throughout the period of my claims in respect of my home in the constituency I have, of course, met the full costs of my flat out of my net taxed income. The item in my recent claims which has attracted most attention and most criticism is gardening expenditure. The improvements to my garden over the years have naturally been paid for out of my own pocket. Where I have needed help during the period in which I have spent long hours in London is with some of the heavier maintenance work. I have had gardening help for eight hours per week. If I am charged that I should have paid this too out of my own pocket, the same could logically be said of every other item for which I have claimed. But that is to imply that Parliament should provide no assistance whatsoever with the additional costs of a second home. The business in question was my father’s pharmacy, which he sold on retirement a quarter of a century ago. Both my father and my mother died in 1989. My only recordable outside interest is income from my cricket novels, which sell only in hundreds and not millions. [ P: He has repaid the total sum concerned: £12,000. See the PDF, page 2 .] This raises a much wider question about the remuneration package of MPs. What I have claimed for is my responsibility. There are many items for which I have not claimed which it seems were no more and no less legitimate than those for which I have. It is not for me to comment on the composition of claims submitted by my colleagues, but I notice that most of them, including David Cameron and Nick Clegg, have been paid the maximum or near-maximum A.C.A. The more extreme matters which have been exposed, quite apart from those things which were within rules which are now viewed with distaste, have impugned Parliament as an institution. As my late mother would have said, we have brought our pigs to a fine market. The system must alter. Simplicity and transparency are needed. In my view the public should be asked to accept that the remuneration of MPs should be confined to an appropriate level of salary on which we would be taxed and accountable to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For thirty years successive Governments have been obsessed with keeping down the headline figure of an MP’s salary whilst permitting the A.C.A. to increase. This is what has contributed to the present mess. With agreement from the Leaders of all the political parties, the Speaker has announced new measures to control and curb the allowances system. We are now committed to implementing reforms which meet the tests of increased transparency and accountability and reduced cost for the taxpayer. Beyond this the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the chairmanship of Sir Christopher Kelly has been asked to produce more far-reaching recommendations and we expect to have a report by the autumn. Ultimately regulation within the House of Commons will be replaced by regulation by an independent body. That is the present intention. I have served this constituency for over 30 years not for profit, but to be an effective advocate for the interests of the people I represent. In the process I have helped many thousands of my constituents. Published figures show that in fact in respect of all parliamentary allowances I have ranked 582nd out of 646 MPs in the year 2007/08 and was in a similar position in the three previous years. Overall I am far from being an expensive claimant. Following the publication of new rules earlier this year which give me freedom to determine which to treat as my main home I took the decision five weeks ago to revert to having my London flat as my additional accommodation. Thus in future my only claims will be for those items which have been agreed by the Party Leaders and announced in the Speaker’s Statement on 19th May. As to the past David Cameron has established a Scrutiny Commission to examine the claims of all Conservative MPs. There will also be a thorough external review embracing all Members. I shall naturally abide by whatever conclusions emerge from these reviews. I hope that I have been able to outline adequately the process. However, I recognise that this situation is not just about process. It is about public perception and anger. The headlines in the local press have not only distressed me and my family, but they must also have affected you as one of my constituents. For that I can only apologise. A great many constituents have given me tremendous support for over 30 years and I can assure you that I will continue to serve you all assiduously and strive to address this current problem. If there are further concerns which you would like to discuss with me, I will be glad to talk with you. Alan Haselhurst

________________________ To do this honourable and faithful MP down for his modest and necessary claims would seem to me to smack of hysteria. It would also mean that only wealthy men like Heffer could stand in his place, God forbid. If even half the 646 were as honourable and diligent as Alan Haselhurst, Parliament would be a far healthier place.