The Tory council which last year unveiled plans for an ‘easy council’ model in which residents would be charged extra for services has voted through massive pay increases – doubling the allowances received by cabinet members and increasing the allowances of the council leader by more than 50 per cent. Leader of Barnet council Lynne Hillan will now be able to claim up to £54,000 a year for the role, a rise of nearly £20,000 – on top of a £10,000 basic allowance.

Only one Tory councillor voted against the measures at Hendon town hall last night, Kate Salinger, who has been removed from all her committee posts by the Tory group, and stripped of all her duties. Under the new measures, cabinet allowances are up £17,000 to £34,000, while at the same time, opposition councillors will lose out, gaining minor allowance increases but losing their £500 travel expenses.

One of those to benefit from the doubling in cabinet allowances is Brian Coleman (pictured right), in charge of transport and the environment, who was already in receipt of more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money.

Coleman is a member of the London Assembly, for which he was last year paid £52,910, and is chairman of the London Fire Board – which recently voted itself a 25 per cent pay rise – and for which Coleman is paid £26,833, all in addition to his wages from the council.

A Standard investigation last year put his total cost to the public purse at £104,503.50. Coleman claimed £2,275 travel expenses for eight months in his role as chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and also ran up a taxi bill of £8,231 in his position as Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, including a £656 bill on one day.

The pay increases come at a time of “austerity” and massive cuts in public services; indeed, only on Monday, local government minister Grant Shapps said:

“It is not justifiable for hikes in councillor allowances when public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze. We’re all in this together, and those who hold public office need to lead by example.”

Coleman, however, says:

“I think residents will be delighted at a sensible scheme within Barnet. The London Councils scheme recognises the work councillors of all parties do. We have to look at allowances every four years and have done what 20 other councils have done…

“The cabinet is getting nothing like its entitled to according to Sir Rodney Brook (report author). I will take the money I’m entitled to. No more, no less.”

Should Sinn Fein MPs be allowed to claim parliamentary expenses, despite the party’s policy of not taking their seats?

Following questioning in PMQs by DUP MP William McCrea, David Cameron told the Commons:

“I would like us to look and see if we can make the argument where there isn’t a case for Sinn Fein members not to take their seats. I think at the moment we let them off the hook. So I would like to re-examine this argument and see if we can find a new way of doing this.“

His answer came despite a near consensus that Sinn Fein should not be allowed to claim expenses at all.

Speaking last year as  Shadow Minister, the Conservative Secretary for Northern Ireland Owen Paterson concluded:

“It is absolutely inconceivable that a Tory-dominated House of Commons is going to vote for allowances for MPs who don’t turn up.”

DUP Deputy Leader, Nigel Dodds has previously described Sinn Fein’s ability to claim expenses as “an iniquitous situation” and for the SDLP, its Leader Margaret Ritchie has previously criticised the payment of expenses as well. The Ulster Unionist MLA, Tom Elliott, also sought to re-buff Sinn Fein’s argument against taking the oath to the Queen. Elliott commented last year:

“It is time for Sinn Féin to stop being so hypocritical. They sit under the Crown in the Assembly, a devolved institution within the United Kingdom. In that assembly they pass legislation which is ratified by the Queen. Some may ask what the difference is.”

As part of its coverage of the expenses scandal, the Telegraph reported that:

•Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams jointly claimed a total of £3,600 a month to rent a shared two bedroom flat in north London. The paper reported one local estate agent who said that a fair monthly rate for a flat of that kind in that area was about £1,400.

•Sinn Fein’s three other MP’s together claimed £5,400 a month to rent a shared house which the estate agent questioned, saying that it should have been in the region of £1,800.

•All five Sinn Fein MPs have claimed more than £310,000 in five years from the public purse by submitting receipts from one man, an Irish landlord living in London, and his family.

Sinn Fein responded by publishing details of their claims which suggested that the party did not claim £50,000 a year communications allowances, or overnight or food allowances, with each MP claiming £100,205 a year worth of staff subsidies.

Defending the claims, Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinnness has previously said:

“The citizens who vote for Sinn Féin are as entitled to get a first class service as the service provided by any other MP. That is exactly what we are doing. That money does not go into our pockets. It employs people. It rents buildings. It buys computers. It does all sorts of things in the interests of the citizens.”

In the Northern Ireland Assembly meanwhile, the DUP have recently vetoed new rules to limit the number of family members an MLA can employ to one, reduce the mileage payments and prevent MLAs from renting offices from relatives. The DUP had argued that they want a new independent body on pay and allowances to be created to oversee any change to the expenses system. Sinn Fein responded by claiming that many, “would question the DUP’s motivation”.

Readers may be wondering why David Cameron’s Director of Communications and Planning, Andy Coulson, was not included in this morning’s list of “top civil service fat cats” splashed across a number of papers.

The simple answer is that the list only includes salaries paid up to 31 March 2010. But Mr Coulson, currently working in No. 10 Downing St, will be expected to top next year’s list if his reported salary of £475,000 turns out to be nearly half true.

The top civil servant on the list, John Fingleton earns just 59 per cent of the former News of the World Editor’s salary, which is equivalent to 20 times the national average.Someone on the London living wage of £7.60 would have to work for over 34 years to earn the reported amount.

Last month, David Cameron announced that Will Hutton would lead a review into public sector pay. According to the Guardian:

“Before the election, the [Conservative] party promised to set up the fair pay review to ensure no senior manager in the public sector could earn more than 20 times the lowest paid person in their organisation.”

When asked why Mr Coulson’s salary was excluded from the list, a Conservative party spokesman laughed and diverted Left Foot Forward to the Cabinet Office. A civil service press officer outlined that only salaries paid in 2009-10 were included.

Our guest writer is Johnny Chatterton of 38 Degrees

For a few minutes yesterday it appeared we had secured a major step forward towards lobbying transparency. During the 38 Degrees/Guardian debate we heard shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt reveal that the Conservative Party backs new rules to ban secret lobbying.

However, shortly after the debate ended, Conservative spin-doctors got in touch to “clarify” that Hunt had not actually said he supported a ban on secret lobbying – a mandatory register of lobbying interests. This was surprising since Hunt had been pretty clear, stating:

“We have said there needs to be statutory register of interest so that everyone knows precisely what lobbying companies are doing and who they lobbying on behalf [of].”

When challenged later in the call he confirmed:

“Yes, we back a statutory code.”

Which was pretty unambiguous – but apparently it does not signal a change in policy. The Conservatives told the Financial Times that they were sticking to their plans to allow lobbyists to “self regulate” – a plan that is very popular with lobbyists but which our friends at Spinwatch describe a “woefully inadequate”.

The FT seems to agree that these plans are weak, concluding that:

“Britain’s lobbyists can breathe easy.”

The Conservatives have made no secret that they are targeting Guardian readers in this election. Earlier this month David Cameron urged Guardian readers to “overcome any prejudices you may have” about the party and vote Conservative.

Cleaning up politics is an issue millions care about. In the last few months alone thousands of 38 Degrees members have joined our campaign for lobbying transparency. If the Conservatives really want to win votes they need to stop using weasel words to avoid confronting important issues.

Our guest writer is Johnny Chatterton of 38 Degrees

Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has performed a u-turn on lobbying transparency, bringing the Conservative Party in line with the Labour and Liberal Democrat plans to impose a statutory register of lobbying interest – less than a week after the Conservative manifesto said the industry could self-regulate.

The manifesto, unveiled last Tuesday, pledges to “clean up politics: the expenses, the lobbying and problems with party funding”, saying “too much unacceptable behaviour has gone unchecked for too long, from excessive expenses to sleazy lobbying practices”.

They will start by “curbing the way in which former Ministers have secured lobbying jobs by exploiting their contacts” and will ensure former ministers “are banned from lobbying government for two years after leaving office”.

Crucially, it adds (p. 66):

“The lobbying industry must regulate itself to ensure its practices are transparent – if it does not, then we will legislate to do so.”

A policy described by lobbying transparency campaigners as “woefully inadequate”.

Hunt was speaking at a 38 Degrees/Guardian debate on people power, in which voters chose questions for the three main parties’ manifesto writers. Responding to a question from a 38 Degrees member Hunt said the Conservatives now favour a statutory register of lobbying interests. When asked to clarify by 38 Degrees campaign director Hannah Lownsbrough, Hunt confirmed Tory policy is now for a “statutory register”.

A statutory register is something 38 Degrees and the Alliance for Lobbying transparency have been campaigning for since July 2009. 38 Degrees will be updating our blog throughout the day with more information here.

Our guest writer is Ann Pettifor, a fellow of the new economics foundation

Local Labour Parties have a golden opportunity to save us all from the parasitic behaviour of the finance sector. There appear to be at least 48 financiers fighting for a Parliamentary seat from which to defend the interests of the City. They are there to fight the good fight on behalf of the City’s greed and its reckless ‘offshore capitalism’.

They can do us all a good service, and expose the threat posed to society – and to our future – by these representatives of a reckless, gluttonous and  ‘socially useless’ profession.

Banksters know they are in a hard fight, not just because of the bad odour in which they are held, not just because they are despised by decent, hard-working people, not just because taxpayers have subsidised them to the tune of £1,000,000,000,000 – according to the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King.

And no, not just because they are resisting  the threat of Labour regulation. No, they are having a hard time because they also have to fight the Tory leadership’s threat to regulate the finance sector, and remove greedy snouts from the bonus trough.

David Cameron has called for a tax on banks – even without international support – but Tory candidates are not backing their leader on this one. They have derided his policy as “whistling in the wind”. George Osborne has called on financial regulators to “combine forces and stop retail banks paying out profits in significant cash bonuses. Full stop.”

But Cameron’s bankster candidates disagree. The Financial Times, in a survey of Tory candidates, has identified 48 that “have had jobs in the City or financial services”.

More than 30 per cent of those that responded to the FT’s questionnaire said “they were uncomfortable with strict financial regulation, with several saying they would prefer it to be left to markets. Many believed that a cap on bonuses was undesirable”.

Richard Drax, candidate for South Dorset, said:

“If we start imposing rules and regulations in this country that aren’t matched in other countries around the world, we risk losing that business and that golden egg.”

Heather Wheeler, candidate for South Derbyshire, said:

“Now that financial markets are so international that if you can’t get all main players to agree, you are whistling in the wind.”

Sjid Javid, former managing director at Deutsche Bank AG and candidate for Bromsgrove, said:

“I think in a free market you can’t really dictate how much people should get paid.”

And John Lamont, standing for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, added:

“We need to be attracting the best brains and talent to the sector … I would be very nervous about (regulation).”

The candidates declined to disclose the size of their bonuses. Harriet Baldwin, who worked as a pension fund manager for JPMorgan and is now the candidate for West Worcestershire, insisting:

“I haven’t even told my husband that.”

If she hasn’t told her husband, will she tell her electors? And will her opponents demand transparency? I hope so, cecause voters need to know if banksters are standing for Parliament to defend the interests of their electors, or to represent a parasitic elite in the City of London – determined to carry on milking taxpayers?

As the election campaign kicks off, UKIP finds itself mired in sleaze allegations, with East of England MEP Stuart Agnew secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter how to get round the ban on proxy donations. The Sunday Times sting also caught out UKIP leader Lord Pearson and former leader Nigel Farage – who is running on an anti-sleaze platform against Speaker John Bercow in the election.

All donations of more than £7,500 to a party headquarters, or £1,500 to an individual or branch, must be declared and real names given to the Electoral Commission, yet Agnew told the undercover reporter, who said her aunt wished to make an anonymous donation:

“If she can trust you she could give you a huge sum of money and you could give it to the party… Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated… She can give money to what’s known as an unincorporated association…

“I’ve spoken to Nigel Farage and he says at the moment you can put £25,000 into Global Britain and you will remain anonymous… Of course, there is an element of trust though that your aunt wants that money into UKIP… Now, as the thing is run by Malcolm Pearson and as he is the leader of UKIP, there’s a pretty good chance, isn’t there, that that money will go in the right direction…”

The Guardian has since revealed that UKIP received £80,000 last year, via Global Britain, from Patrick Barbour – a Taxpayers’ Alliance backer. Agnew appeared to have no end of methods of concealing donations, adding:

“Another thing she could do: you are her niece — she could give you £3,000 before April 5, in other words before the end of the tax year… as a present, as a gift. You would then immediately give UKIP a donation of £3,000…

“Your mother can make you a loan of £100,000 to buy a house … and you would then become a donor to the party for £100,000 and your name would go up on the [commission] website… You are seen to be the donor rather than her.”

Responding to the report, UKIP merely insist it was “not unwise” for Agnew to follow up the lead, claiming it was just “naive” of him “not to realise it was a Sunday Times reporter in disguise”. The party also claims that all donations received for the European Election campaign – including the £80,000 via the Global Britain front group were:

“Perfectly legal and within the guidelines set down by the Electoral Commission.”

UKIP has been plagued by allegations of impropriety recently; Left Foot Forward has reported several of these cases:

• Last November, West Midlands MEP Mike Nattrass threatened to sue The Sunday Times after it reported allegations he was being investigated by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office.

• In addition to Nattrass, current or former MEPs Ashley Mote, Derek Clark, Jeffrey Titford and Farage himself have been investigated by OLAF.

• Also last autumn, another former UKIP MEP, Tom Wise, was sent down after being convicted of embezzling £36,000 of taxpayers’ money into a secret bank account – £3,500 of which was spent on two bottles of wine.

Our guest writer is Zoe Gannon, Research Coordinator at Compass

Alistair Darling’s Budget was an opportunity to address the inequity of tax avoidance. He took it but there’s still more to be done.

When someone earning a lot of money, over £100,000 for example, chooses not to pay their taxes it is those on lower incomes who have to pick up the tab. It is estimated that £25 billion is lost every year to tax avoidance and tax evasion in the UK by the wealthiest individuals and companies. The budget was an opportunity to address this injustice.

Alistair Darling’s announcement today on new information exchange agreements to combat tax avoidance with three new countries – Dominica, Grenada and Belize – is a step in the right direction, as is the announcement of £500 million extra tax revenue gained through introducing new tax agreements. Both of these measures indicate the government’s commitment to closing in on tax avoidance and should be welcomed by all those who want to build for a fairer society.

With an election just around the corner, closing in on tax avoidance, which was not only supported by 77 per cent of the public in a poll that Compass carried out last year, but is also part of creating a fairer tax system generally, has got to be a good idea. If the government’s commitment to ending tax avoidance in the UK is followed by further measures to combat tax avoidance, like announcing a consultation on introducing a General Anti Avoidance Principle, in the manifesto this will be an excellent mandate for a fourth term built on the principles of fairness.

As David Cameron faced questions today about why he had not removed the whip from lobbying sinner Sir John Butterfill, Left Foot Forward examines the hypocrisy behind Cameron’s “vested interests” speech at the weekend.

On Saturday David Cameron declared that only a Tory Government could stand up to elite interests such as the City. With echoes of Obama’s “we are the change we seek” speech, Mr Cameron stated that he would take on the vested interests which were the “enemies of change” and who would “use any means to block progress” to maintain their power. But when he says by “any means” does this include financing the Tory frontbench, including himself?

The register of members interests shows a clear pattern of the Tories taking money from wealthy men who have made their fortune in the City. Across the Tory front bench close to £200,000 has been accepted from financial firms:

• George Osborne’s office has received £25,000 from financier Simon Robertson, £15,000 in support from the head of the CQS Management Ltd hedge fund Michael Hintze, further support from Hugh Sloane (of the Sloane Robinson hedge fund), as well as gifts in kind from IGPL.

• Liam Fox received £50,000 from the managing partner of Alchemy Partners, a private equity firm, £10,000 from Stanley Fink, £5,000 from Private Capital Limited, £5,000 from Tweeddale Advisers (registered with the FSA) and £4,500 from head hedge fund manager Alan Howard;

• Oliver Letwin has been paid over £30,000 from N.M. Rothschild & Sons as a non-executive director;

• Francis Maude received £40,831 from private equity advisers Bain and Company Holdings for a temporary secondment, was paid £9,000 for 15 hours work as a member of Barclays’ Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee, and received a gift worth £700 from Flowidea Ltd, an investment company.

• Ken Clarke is a non-executive director of AgCapita Partners LP – a private equity firm.

• William Hague received financial support from Merebis Capital Management LLP and from CQS Management Ltd;

• Philip Hammond has received money from Michael Hintz of CQS Management;

• Teresa May has received gifts worth £1,200 from Michael Hintze;

• Nick Herbert has had £5,000 from Johan Christofferson (presumably of Christofferson, Robb and Co, a hedge fund;

• Mark Hoban has received hospitality from JP Morgan Chase worth £1,300; and

• David Cameron has received gifts in kind from IGPL a company which describes itself as a “private holding company which invests in world class financial services businesses” while Stanley Fink – the former Director and now Chairman of the Man Investments hedge fund and co-Treasurer of the Conservative party, has paid for Cameron’s travel costs.

It is unclear how Mr Cameron can claim to be an agent of “change” when these donations outline quite how clearly the Conservatives are supported by the same vested financial interests which caused the recession in the first place.

• Join 38 Degrees’ call for David Cameron to support lobbying transparency, a position now adopted by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats

UPDATE 14.32:

I’ve been reminded of one other Conservative vested interest: the Telegraph expose that Andrew Lansley is “bankrolled by private healthcare provider”

Our guest writer is Elliott Fox

Liam Fox’s paid-for trips to Sri Lanka, which were revealed by Left Foot Forward last month, are mentioned today in a BBC investigation into MPs’ overseas trips paid for by foreign governments.

The BBC, however, has overlooked an incident raised on our original story. In November 2009, Liam Fox spoke in favour of the Sri Lankan government in a Commons debate without mentioning he was in Sri Lanka the week before to attend the president’s party convention.

As Left Foot Forward said at the time, the incident occured amid rising allegations of war crimes perpetrated by the Sri Lankan army, and talks in Brussels of suspending a privileged trade agreement between Sri Lanka and the EU over human rights issues – which was indeed suspended last month.

Responding to Labour MP Mike Gapes’s concerns of a humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, Mr Fox had said:

“As members of the European Union, we have to be careful not to lecture too much or give too few incentives in a country that is beginning to move very much in the right direction.”

Three days earlier, he registered a visit to Sri Lanka from 14 to 17 November 2009, which was paid for by the Sri Lankan Development Trust:

“To attend the Sri Lanka Freedom Party national convention and for meetings with the President of Sri Lanka and the Foreign Minister.”

According to the MPs’ code of conduct, they must declare a financial interest if a foreign trip “might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question” – this includes making a verbal declaration of interest when speaking during a debate.

UPDATE 22.47:

It has come to our attention that the third of Liam Fox’s trips to Sri Lanka in November 2009 was paid for by the Sri Lankan Development Trust and not the Sri Lankan government. It was therefore factually incorrect to say that the trip was at “the country’s expense”. However, Liam Fox did make trips to Sri Lanka in March 2009 and August 2009 which were, respectively entirely and partially paid for by the Sri Lankan Government.

The House of Commons’ Code of Conduct states:

“It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Member’s interest.

“In a debate in the House the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of his or her speech.”

Although Liam Fox registered the trips in the correct manner, he did not make his interest clear when he spoke in the House of Commons debate on foreign and commonwealth affairs and defence on November 23rd about Sri Lanka, other than to talk of his “long involvement in Sri Lanka”.

Our guest writer is Ellen Bloomer, an intern at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr)

Recent events leave us in no doubt that the parliamentary rulebook is in need of drastic reform. The question is, what form should it take? Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) spoke at ippr last night to outline his vision of reforming the system of MPs’ expenses, based on the principles of fairness, workability and transparency.

Sir Ian accepts that involvement in the debate over the role of an MP is “perhaps the largest challenge”. However, it is odd that it should be viewed as a long-term goal when it so clearly determines the very basis of the expenses reforms, “because it is IPSA which must ultimately allocate the public’s money to allow the MP to carry out this role”.

Although Sir Ian said it is “not for IPSA to determine what an MP is for”, his discussion of the consultation process insinuated that an understanding of the role of an MP, at the very least, is necessary:

“MPs were particularly anxious that we understood what it means to be an MP and how representing Orkney and Shetland brings different challenges from those met by the representative of an inner London constituency; one size does not always fit all…

“Parliament has become rivaled – some might say supplanted – by attention to case‐work, taking up the concerns of constituents.”

This suggests a certain sympathy towards the view that MPs have become “glorified social workers” at the expense of legislation scrutinizers. So, how does Sir Ian allow the expenses system to reflect the varying and changing roles of the MPs? We will have to wait until next week to find out.

In the wake of the revelations about the conduct of former minsters Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt yesterday there have been demands for Byers, especially, to be severely punished for boasting he was “like a cab for hire”, charging up to £5,000 a day for his services and claiming he had used his government contacts to change policies in favour of businesses which had given him money.

Although Lord Adonis, a successor of Byers as transport secretary and one of those named as having been influenced, denies Byers’s version of events, telling the Commons this afternoon that he “does not know why he would say such a thing”, pressure is mounting for Byers to be expelled from the Privy Council.

A petition has been launched asking the Queen “to strip Stephen Byers of his Privy Council Membership”, stating his continued membership of the council is “wholly and utterly inappropriate”. It adds:

“We, the undersigned, call on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth … to strip Stephen Byers MP of his membership of the Privy Council due to his involvement in offering to sell access to the British Government for personal profit.”

Just last weekend Left Foot Forward reported the launch of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency’s campaign for a compulsory register of lobbyists, revealing the high number of PPCs involved in the lobbying industry and their failure to disclose their links to voters.

Tamasin Cave of the ALT today said:

“We must now have public scrutiny of the whole of the influence industry. The public has a right to know what other deals are being done over public policy and government contracts. Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg must publicly commit to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, as recommended a year ago by the Public Administration Select Committee…

“Today’s revelations have finally embarrassed Labour into supporting a statutory register of lobbyists in its manifesto. This is not enough. We need a firm commitment from all parties to implement the Committee’s recommendation for a statutory register of lobbyists at the earliest possible date. Despite David Cameron’s recent words on the need for more transparency in lobbying, the Conservative party still appears to back the failed system of self-regulation by lobbyists over a compulsory register…

“For too long we’ve been asked to trust politicians that they will act in the public interest. If public trust is to be rebuilt – and if we want government accountability – we need transparency. The public must be allowed to scrutinise in whose interest politicians are acting, ours or those of business.”

• Sign the 38 Degrees petition demanding lobbying transparency, and find out what you can do to take action.

“Dispatches: Politicians for Hire” is on tonight on Channel 4 at 8:00.

Thirty-seven council chief executives in England received average payoffs of more than £250,000 each in the 33 months to last September, a review by the Audit Commission has found.

Thirteen were given severence packages of more than £300,000 and three received payoffs of more than £500,000, totalling £9.5 million.

Both Labour and the Conservatives united to condemn the largesse, local government secretary John Denham calling for a way to be found “to change the rules so taxpayers’ money can be clawed back where the system has been exploited” and his shadow Bob Neil saying:

“Such payments are an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money and an affront to families facing soaring council tax bills. There should be no rewards for failure, either in the public or private sector.“

In Scotland, meanwhile, Scottish Water has announced that its chief executive, Richard Ackroyd, is to donate  a quarter of his performance related bonus to the charity WaterAid; last year Mr Ackroyd, who earns a basic salary of £263,000, received a bonus worth £101,000 or 38 per cent of his basic salary.

In a statement, the boss of one of Scotland’s largest publicly owned businesses said:

“I have looked carefully at all the circumstances and at how people are being affected by the consequences of the downturn in the economy. My priority as chief executive is to ensure that Scottish Water continues to deliver increasing value for money for our customers and that objective is even more vital in the current circumstances.

“While all Scottish Water staff must be properly rewarded for delivering outstanding performance Scottish Water will divert 25 per cent of any incentive payment due to me for our performance in 2009/10 to go to charity. The value of this will depend on the levels of performance achieved by Scottish Water at the end of the financial year. This will be assessed by the board of Scottish Water and paid in June 2010.”

In response, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said:

“This is a welcome step by Mr Ackroyd. The finance secretary has made clear his desire that chief executives of public bodies should give up some or all of their bonus voluntarily. That request has already produced positive responses.”

In January, Left Foot Forward reported that half of all quango bosses in Scotland – including Mr Ackroyd - had failed to commit to a call by the finance secretary, John Swinney, to forgo their bonuses for the next year.

At the time, Labour’s finance spokesman David Whitton had said:

“Any chief executive who has taken a bonus in these particularly difficult times will have to answer in the court of public opinion.”

My Ackroyd’s moves seem likely to be a gesture towards the court of opinion referred to by Mr Whitton. However, he has made clear that he remains firmly committed to the principle of bonuses, telling the Herald:

“Our board is committed to the principle of performance-related pay. We think the system we operate in Scottish Water is an exemplar of how to do PRP successfully. There is no PRP unless all of the targets set for us by ministers and regulators are exceeded.”

The announcement by Scottish Water comes after the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) announced last week that chief executives across Scotland’s local authorities would forgo a planned 2.5 per cent pay rise in April. COSLA’s spokeman for human resources management, Cllr Michael Cook, said:

“The testing times both now and which lie ahead are such that leadership counts and Chief Executives have shown genuine leadership which we trust will set an example to others. It mirrors the decision of Council Leaders to agree to their pay being frozen in the coming year. It is significant that the political and executive leadership of councils have recognised the unprecedented challenges which lie ahead.” 

Last week, Gordon Brown announced all civil servants earning more than £58,200 will face a pay freeze over the next three years, saving an estimated £3 billion.

The British National Party’s lack of transparency over their accounts and expenses has landed them in hot water with both the British and European authorities. Having failed to submit their accounts on time to the electoral commission, the BNP are refusing to publish details of their European expenses.

The Telegraph reports the failure of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to give any details of how they spend more than half-a-million pounds of expenses, made up of a €50,424 (£45,382) annual general expenditure allowance, €4,148 (£3,733) annual travel allowance and a €210,480 (£189,432) a year staffing allowance – this despite not having “any staffers accredited to work” in Brussels or Strasbourg according to the European parliament.

On Griffin’s official MEP website, on the completely blank “Accounts & Expenses” page, it says only:

“All accounts and expenses will be published on this page for complete transparency as soon as they become available.”

While Brons responds to the Telegraph by claiming, repeatedly, that there is “no obligation” for him to justify his expenses to anyone, despite having campaigned for election on an anti-sleaze platform, criticising the established parties for having their “snouts in the trough”. Brons wrote:

“…The amounts received in both subsistence and travel are on public record and I am not under any obligation to make any other return…I have not been asked to make any return but I have the exact figures if I am asked to do so…There is no obligation for me to make any other return…There is no requirement to make any other return…”

Domestically, Left Foot Forward has learnt that the Electoral Commission have placed the BNP “under review” over their failure to submit their accounts on time, initially reported by Left Foot Forward in January. A spokesman today said:

“They’re a case under review. This is not yet a full-blown investigation, this is the last stage before an investigation. If they are to be fully investigated, this will be announced.”

Our guest writer is Tamasin Cave, of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency

“I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics” – so said David Cameron, just last month, in a call for the “light of transparency” to be shone on lobbying, adding: “We don’t know who is meeting whom. We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence.”

Yet, as the Observer reveals this weekend, some of his party’s current crop of prospective MPs are hiding their links to the lobbying industry from voters. Today, 38 Degrees, has teamed up with the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency to launch a campaign for lobbying transparency – targeting the prospective MPs revealed in the Observer investigation.

Take Cameron’s former press secretary, George Eustice, standing in the Cornish three-way marginal of Camborne and Redruth. Mr Eustice’s campaign website talks in detail about his parents’ farm (in his constituency), which has “a farm shop providing quality local produce” and “a herd of British Lop pigs – a rare breed native to Cornwall”.

It fails to mention, however, his current job as a lobbyist for a large consultancy that lobbies for, among others, supermarket giants Tesco and Morrisons. “There are lots of things that you don’t mention,” he says by way of explanation.

Another is Priti Patel, Conservative party candidate for the notionally Tory seat of Witham in Essex. She claims that her experience outside politics means she has “an innate understanding about the issues faced by small businesses”. Like Mr Eustice, she doesn’t disclose that her current employer is the UK’s leading public affairs (aka lobbying) firm, where her clients include a bankers’ lobby group.

Parliamentary candidates working as lobbyists aren’t confined to the Conservative party, but they do make up the majority. Lobbying firms hire parliamentary hopefuls not only to open doors now, but also to secure a direct line to any future government. It makes sense then that Conservative candidates would be more sought after than their rivals. Ms Patel, for example, is described by her employers as “a great hire… powerfully connected within Cameron’s Conservatives”.

The issue of secretive lobbying among Tories isn’t just confined to Parliamentary candidates either. Conservative peers Lords Bell and Chadlington both head up lobbying firms that refuse to disclose their clients. Lord Bell’s firm, Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, says the public has “no right to know” who it is lobbying for. Lord Chadlington’s firm, Quiller, puts it rather more politely; “we understand the importance of discretion,” it says.

Then there are the many former MPs that now work in the influence industry, who still have access to the House of Commons, as the Sunday Times revealed last weekend. Again, the majority of them are ex-Conservative MPs. Put in this light, Mr Cameron’s pledge last month to be the party that “sorts all this out”, makes sense. Secretive lobbying, at the moment, is predominantly a Conservative affair.

What neither of the main parties has done though is to support the one concrete solution to an opaque influence industry: a compulsory register of lobbyists. This would require all lobbyists to make public who they are, who they are lobbying for and which areas of public life they are seeking to influence. A register would provide the much needed public scrutiny of who has the ear of this or any future government.

All of which is why 38 Degrees is supporting the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency’s campaign for a compulsory register. Take action now by emailing your parliamentary candidate, whether they’re involved in lobbying or not, to press them to pledge their support for new transparency rules for lobbyists.

Liam Fox has this afternoon admitted to Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News that David Cameron knew that Lord Ashcroft was a non-dom “within the last month”. But he refused to set out when William Hague first found out.

Watch it:

Last night, William Hague admitted on the Radio 4’s The World Tonight that he “found out in the last few months about Ashcroft”. It is unclear whether this was before or after he told Andrew Marr that Ashcroft “fulfils the obligations that were imposed on him” in November last year.

As covered on this blog yesterday, Hague also told Jeremy Paxman in June, just nine months ago, that “I have no reason to think he hasn’t complied”.

UPDATE 16.05

The Guardian has five questions for the Conservatives on the Ashcroft affair including “When exactly did [William Hague] discover your party’s deputy chairman was a non-dom?”

A decade ago William Hague assured Tony Blair that upon becoming a peer, Michael Ashcroft would pay “tens of millions a year in tax”. As it emerged yesterday that Ashcroft had, in fact, been a ‘non dom’ during this period and avoided £127 million in tax, Left Foot Forward wonders why the shadow foreign secretary told Jeremy Paxman repeatedly in June last year that he had “no reason to think that he’s not complied with the commitments that he gave.”

The exchange of letters in 1999 between Tony Blair and William Hague, reproduced in this morning’s Guardian, outline the then-Tory leaders’ assurances about Michael Ashcroft:

“He is, however, committed to becoming resident by the next financial year in order properly to fulfil his responsibilities in the House of Lords. This decision will cost him (and benefit the Treasury) tens of millions a year in tax yet he considers it worthwhile.”

But in June 2009, William Hague faced 17 questions from Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight about Lord Ashcroft including:

PAXMAN: Just one final point, in the current climate of suspicion about politics your deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, a man whose peerage you lobbied for, saying that he would become resident in Britain for tax purposes, can you just tell us, is he resident in Britain for tax purposes now?

HAGUE: I’ve no reason to think that he’s not complied with the commitments that he gave …

PAXMAN: Have you asked him directly?

HAGUE: I have discussed it with him and I have no reason to think he hasn’t complied

Watch it:

• Join the facebook group and sign the petition demanding Lord Ashcroft pays back the missing millions

A petition has been launched demanding Tory deputy chair Lord Ashcroft of Belize pay back the £127 million he avoided paying in tax since his elevation to the Lords in 2000. Today’s Mirror has calculated the sum, and quotes Lib Dem home affair’s spokesman Chris Huhne, who said:

“He’s avoided vast sums in a non-dom tax dodge. Anyone who wants to pass laws about tax in this country should pay the full taxes and not hide behind the special offshore status of non-doms.”

The petition says:

“We, the undersigned, call on Lord Ashcroft to pay to the UK exchequer the tax for which he would have been liable had he not decided to be non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes since 2000, so that it can be spent on the NHS, schools, police and other front line services.

“Commentators estimate that this sum could be as much as £127 million.”

It follows the highly-successful Facebook group, which now has more than 1,250 members.

This is how the Mirror calculated the £127 million figure:

“Lord Ashcroft’s fortune is estimated at £1,100 million by the Sunday Times Rich List.

“A 5% annual return is £55m. If he kept 80% offshore taxpayers would miss income from £44m.
He can split his tax between capital gains and income tax.

“At 18%, capital gains tax on £22m = £3.96m, plus 40% income tax on £22m = £8.8m. That’s £12.76m a year or £127.6m in 10 years.”

Earlier today, Left Foot Forward reported the huge influence Ashcroft has over the Tory party, and the potential effect he may have on the election. Ashcroft’s money pays for 78% of Tory spending in marginals, far higher than the 2% of donations the Tories have claimed.

UPDATE 2:40

John Slinger, who set up the petition, has just told Left Foot Forward:

“The Tories and Lord Ahscroft may think that they can put this story to bed with a belated Damascan conversion to transparency, but it won’t wash. I set up this petition because I hope that the British public will think long and hard about what the Ashcroft affair says about the modern Tories.

“Ordinary people are struggling in the current economic circumstances, paying their taxes and often relying on public services such as the NHS to improve their life chances.

“Yet the Tories have as their Deputy Chairman a billionaire who chooses to pay only a fraction of his taxes in this country yet seeks to influence the outcome of the next election. It may be legal, but it’s a disgrace.”