Following on from my previous post, at our recent Association Management meeting, I proposed that the Bristol & South Gloucestershire Conservative Association should we petition the membership on removing Giles Chichester from our party list for the South West Region seat in the European Parliament, and that we collectively write to David Cameron urging him to request Ms Spelman's resignation from the role of Chairman of the Conservative Party

However I was unable to convince the rest of the team that now was the right time to take action; the consensus being that we should give both Mr Chichester and Ms Spelman the opportunity to discuss their financial arrangements with their respective ombudsman - the Quaestor's Office and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. However the Ladies' Committee has written to David Cameron to indicate their displeasure!

If you fancy getting involved in one of our local campaigns, now is a great time to start. We've got a Political Discussion Group taking place on June 19th (venue: 5 Westfield Park), and lots of canvassing to do in Bristol West and the other constituencies.

In other local news:

If you've got £195.00 to spare, you might be interested in a two-day pass to the Bristol Environmental
Technologies & Services Expo. I'm getting quite a lot of traffic to my blog article from people looking for their website. Looks like my Search-Engine Optimisation is better than theirs.

Tommorrow (June 10th), is the full Council of the City of Bristol. I'll be watching it over the Internet to see if I can see Shirley Marshall making one of her infrequent visits to our city. The Conservative Group have got a few pointed questions to ask of the ruling cabinet:

MQ2 COUNCILLOR J GOULANDRIS TO ASK COUNCILLOR P HAMMOND, DEPUTY LEADER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COHESION AND RAISING ACHIEVEMENT PUBLICATION OF THE PRIMARY SCHOOL REVIEW

• Q1. On reflection, does the Executive Member agree that the public consultation on the Primary School Review should not have been launched just before a one-week school holiday?
• Q3. The Executive Member is quoted as saying that the aim is 'to transform primary education in Bristol and continue (sic) to raise standards of achievements'. Why does he feel so little has been achieved in recent years in terms of improved results and achievements?

COUNCILLOR R EDDY TO ASK COUNCILLOR J PRICE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR HOMES AND STREETSCENE

• Q1. Please can the Executive Member confirm the current status of the urgent inquiry which was ordered after the distressing discovery of an 8-year old body in council accommodation at Mawdeley House, Bedminster, in early February 2008?

MQ18 COUNCILLOR B LEWIS TO ASK COUNCILLOR P HAMMOND, DEPUTY LEADER, AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COHESION AND RAISING ACHIEVEMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL REVIEW

• Q1 Please can the executive Member provide me with the evidential basis behind his presumption in favour of super size primary schools to give the best possible education?

Primary education is a hot topic in the city at the moment. The contention of the council is that schools "do not give the best value for money for council tax payers". And yet the parents say they prefer these close-knit institutions. The Primary Review Consultation is the justification for this policy, but there will be no school closures before 2010, so there's still time to fix things..

One development that I only found out about recently (via Mr Vowles)is a plan by a group of parents to form their own Urban Village School. Their next meeting is June 17th at at the Malcolm X Centre, Ashley Road, St. Pauls. One to watch, perhaps, particularly with the involvement of ex-Cotham Grammar School head James Wetz.

I was planning to write about Recycling this weekend, in response to an excellent comment from reader Elisabeth, but circumstances require that I discuss a different subject.

Giles Chichester MEP has recently resigned as leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, due to a breach of the parliamentary rules on handling his allowances. He used a company of which he was a director to provide services to himself in his role as an MEP. According to his press release:

"I have used my family company as a service provider to support my parliamentary work since I was elected to the European Parliament in 1994. The activities of the company have been openly logged with Companies House in the UK, and it has an official contract formally registered with the European Parliament. It has been my understanding that this arrangement has, at all times, been fully compatible with the parliamentary rules.

"Eighteen months ago, I received a letter from the Quaestors' office suggesting there might be a conflict of interest regarding the company.

"I replied to this letter setting out my belief that the arrangements were fully in compliance with the rules of Parliament. I received no response from the Parliament authorities."

I find this explanation unacceptable. Although I am absolutely certain that Mr Chichester acted in good faith and that there has been no misappropriation of funds, the mechanism he chose for receiving his - extremely generous - allowances was to say the least lacking in transparency. For me, the essence of Conservatism is to deal with public funds in a manner that is beyond reproach and open to public scrutiny. And for that reason, just as Mr Chichester's position as group leader was untenable, so his acceptability to represent the Conservative party for the office of MEP must be ruled out.

At the next meeting of the Bristol & South Gloucestershire Conservative Association, I will be proposing that we petition the membership on removing Giles Chichester from our party list for the South West Region seat in the European Parliament. Given that his position on the list was automatic, as the existing office holder, this works out well democratically as the remaining five people on the list were all selected by a ballot.

(More thoughts to follow on my dislike of closed list proportional representation and degressive proportionality. And I'll write something about the wretched EPP-ED group as well)

And just as I was putting my thoughts together on this topic, another misunderstanding over allowances by one of my fellow party members came to light.

A decade ago, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, Caroline Spelman MP, used part of her Parliamentary allowance to pay her nanny's salary. Ms Spelman's contention is that her nanny did both secretarial and childcare work, and that this is all within the rules. Her statement to the press:

Speaking outside her home, Ms Spelman explained that when she became MP for Meriden she inherited a backlog of correspondence and work from the seat’s previous holder, Iain Mills, who had died unexpectedly.

To cope she hired Miss Haynes to work in the constituency office Ms Spelman had set up at her home in Solihull.

Ms Spelman said "(Tina) would deal with the secretarial side of things while the children where in school and after school provide child care for my kids.

As with Giles Chichester, I very much doubt that there has been any intentional wrong-doing, nor any misappropriation of funds. But nevertheless as Conservatives - in particular the national leadership of the party- we must be beyond reproach in handling tax payers money and representing the people. The moral high ground is at times rather barren and rocky, but that is the ground we seek to hold.

Therefore on this basis, I will also - at the next meeting of the Bristol & South Gloucestershire Conservative Association - be proposing that we write to the party leader, David Cameron, urging him to request Ms Spelman's resignation from the role of Chairman of the Conservative Party. Her reselection for the parliamentary seat of Meridien is of course a matter for their local association.

I view the entire system of Parliamentary allowances - European and UK - as irretrievably broken, and I'd like to get shot of the whole lot. Their purpose is supposed to be to assist Parliamentarians in representing their constituents, not to support the lifestyle aspirations of a political elite. I recently itemised the potential take of a UK Member of Parliament:

[MPs receive] a basic salary of £61,820. Ten percent of that salary can be invested in the world's best pension scheme, the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. Parliamentarians also receive a staffing allowance of up to £90,854, Incidental Expenses Allowance of up to £22,193, up to £5,000 pounds of IT equipment, £2,916 of London weighting if they're in the Big Smoke, up to £24,006 of Additional Costs Allowance [a second home and the infamous "John Lewis" List], up to £10,400 for "communications" plus practically unlimited reimbursement for personal transport expenses and mileage, and up to 30 trips for WAGS and children. Have a look at The Green Book for the full story.

Ignoring the value of the pension (which is considerable) and the travel allowances (which are very nice indeed) - this is a total of £217,000.00 per annum. I have also not included the large chunk of cash MPs receive as "Winding Up" money if they lose their office at a general election

It's time to simplify this whole mess. Doing it for the European Parliament may be a tough proposition, but for the UK parliament we should boil all these allowances down to a single payment. I'd suggest £61,820 plus travel expenses as a good number. It's certainly much more than the average British wage of £28,589.60.

I've proposed as much at the blog of local MP Kerry McCarthy (Lab Bristol East). I think a desire to constrain unnecessary expenditure by MPs at a time of economic hardship for British voters is a good area for cross-party collaboration. My suggestion to Kerry was that we collaborate on an Early Day Motion to effect this change, to be called "The McCarthy Bill". Or perhaps it could be the "Williams Bill" or the "Primarolo Bill" or the "Naysmith Bill". I believe I shall ask around the local area to see if I can find a sponsor.