Monday 30 March 2009

Washington

Met with former Democrat presidential hopeful Patricia Scott Schroeder, now President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers.  Interesting discussion about the difference between the US and UK libel laws.  In the US the libelled has to prove the error, in the UK the publisher has to prove their facts.

 

Committee members and staff with former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder now President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers.

 

Had lunch with the American Library Association who campaign for freedom of speech and in defence of the first amendment.  They say they would not sanction against holocaust denial and would defend the right to insult.  They support current US libel laws and oppose Patriot Act restrictions on freedom.  I asked whether they believed the Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11 if it had been on the Statute Book at that time.  The answer was an emphatic no.

Visited the offices of the Washington Post and met the General Manager, Bo Jones and their legal team.  The message was that the law is less strict in the US but the quality press check their facts more.  This is turning out to be the conundrum between the two systems.  The one that carries the least penalty seems to encourage the fact checking one would welcome from the media in the UK.

 

The committee and hosts with Ben Bradley at the Washington Post

The principle followed by the Post is to always double-check your facts.

The former Post Editor, Ben Bradley, who broke the Watergate Story and was played by Jason Robards in the movie ‘All The Presidents Men’ met us and reinforced the message about ethics and double checking facts.  He fears the loss of investigative journalism as budgets are tightened.

On the Hill we had a discussion with congressional aids preparing for a Bill that would make libel judgements outside the US unenforceable within.  This is something we are going to explore in more detail in Albany tomorrow.

We later met Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) and discussed this attempt to change the law and prevent UK libel actions being enforced in the US.   We heard many more defences of the 1^st amendment and freedom of speech that I am beginning to warm towards.  The evidence so far is highlighting that the UK's problem is the lack of a written constitution.

  

The railway that runs for around 200 yards linking the Congress with the outbuildings.  Is this the original politician’s gravy train?

 

On the subject of so called gravy trains, today is the day when MPs expenses are published and it is a very strange experience sitting on the minibus with 7 other MPs as mobile phones ring with journalists asking questions about them.

In fact I fear for my mobile phone bill at the end of the month given I have to pick up the cost of the overseas element of someone phoning me.

Among our number are the MP with the highest travel costs in the country, the MP with the highest claim in the West Midlands, and an MP who with his MP wife has clocked up very high living cost allowances.

I heard it half a dozen times as they spoke to their local papers trying to explain the difference between payments made to others, such as rent, rates, rail tickets, and claims paid direct to themselves, such as car mileage.

All were telling the same story that MPs for urban seats tend to have higher staffing and office costs that reflect greater casework activity.  MPs for rural seats tend to have higher transport costs.

If MPs don’t visit their constituencies every week it will be reflected in lower travel costs.

MPs on the Government pay-roll will claim less through the published expenses because some of their transport and other costs will be met centrally – these costs will be hidden.

MPs engaged in select committee or all party group international activities will receive daily expenses while overseas and their travel costs will be met that may include those to and from their constituency – these costs are all hidden and not part of the published expenses much to the annoyance of MPs who don’t spend several weeks of the year on foreign trips.

My long-held conclusion is that we need complete disclosure and transparency.  The present partial disclosure can mislead as it shields MPs whose actual costs are far greater than those published, or whose lower costs are simply a reflection of lower levels of activity within a constituency or on behalf of constituents.

 

On the Hill with part of the committee: Alan Keen MP (Lab), Adrian Sanders MP (Lib Dem), Philip Davies MP (Con), John Whittingdale MP (Con), Paul Farrelly MP (Lab) and Mike Hall MP (Lab).

 

At £164,000 my overall claim looks high in comparison to other MPs, but nothing is hidden.  It reflects the cost of representing a constituency a long way from London on a line served by the country’s most expensive rail operator.  It is consistent with the costs of employing four staff, one on London pay scales, and of maintaining two offices, one in the constituency that I return to every weekend when the House is sitting.  Even though there are many cost factors beyond my control my claims are always well below the maximum that could be claimed because I always strive for value for money for the taxpayer. 

It must be a quiet news day back home because I receive several calls from different media outlets on a number of issues that have nothing to do with MPs remuneration.

We left the Hill just as President Obama was arriving to make a speech before he was then due to fly to the G20 Summit in London.  The number of police and other security vehicles lining the short distance between the White House and Congress was stunning.

We ate at the ‘famous’ Ben’s Chilli Bowl in Washington.  A packed greasy spoon diner that Obama visited at the start of his Presidential campaign.  I couldn’t resist Ben’s original chillie half-smoke hot-dog.  Pity there’s nothing like it in Torbay, or anywhere in the UK as far as I can tell. 

We left the city very late and arrived at our hotel in Albany just before midnight.