‘Witch-hunt’ Watson pressing for Sir Keir to give him a peerage
TOM WATSON privately hopes for a second shot at a peerage under Sir Keir Starmer, his allies have said.
A source close to the former Labour deputy leader said Mr Watson is desperate to return to Parliament and thinks he has more of a chance if proposed by Sir Keir. His failed attempt last year was part of three rejected peerages, all put forward by Jeremy Corbyn – alongside aide Karie Murphy and former Speaker John Bercow.
‘ He thinks he has more of a chance a second time round,’ the source said of Mr Watson, pointing out that he would now be on a less controversial list. Last year Mr Watson was rejected by the House of Lords appointments commission, reportedly over Operation Midland, after his role in plugging false claims by convicted fantasist Carl Beech.
Now chairman of UK Music, Watson nevertheless misses Parliament, the source said. Another insider praised Mr Watson’s experience but said the decision was up to Labour.
The source said Mr Watson and Sir Keir formed a bond when the ex- deputy l eader backed Sir Keir’s second referendum plans while he was Shadow Brexit Secretary.
In 2012, Mr Watson told the Commons t here was ‘ clear intelligence’ about the existence of a ‘powerful paedophile network’ at Westminster.
Mr Watson later said of the victims of Operation Midland: ‘I understand why they are angry and I understand why some of the anger is targeted at me.’
He added: ‘I did my best… I am genuinely very, very sorry that the inquiries didn’t go the way they did.’
Mr Watson could not be reached for comment, but one ally of Sir Keir warned the Labour leader about a ‘political minefield’ if he revived talk of a Watson peerage.
AN ‘ ERMINE on ermine’ row between two peers has shone a much needed spotlight on the House of Lords’ attendance allowance system being wide open to abuse.
A peer has questioned whether the way members are entitled to claim £323 a day just for showing up isn’t long overdue for reform.
In particular, they’ve pointed the finger at Baroness Falkner as one alleged ‘serial offender’ when it comes to claiming without contributing to debates.
Kishwer Falkner, 66, cut her political teeth in the Lib Dems as a policy wonk and failed to become either an MP or MEP before being made a life peer in 2004.
She earns up to £5,976 a month – often for days where she doesn’t speak in the second chamber – on top of her salaries as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – £500 a day – and as a member of a Bank of England committee. Take, for example, last November, when, quite within the rules, she claimed for 15 days’ allowance at a cost of £ 4,684 to taxpayers, while speaking on only two days that month.
And in March and February this year, she claimed £7,271 for 26 days and spoke on just 11 of them.
According to my mole, during a debate on the Race and Ethnic Disparities report in April, Falkner ‘ came in later, sat silent on the benches for a while and left to claim her allowance’.
Falkner explains that the hybrid system of virtual and actual attendance that has been implemented due to Covid means crossbenchers must apply to be ‘listed’ to speak, with no guarantee of being called. As EHRC chair, had she tried to get listed for the race debate? No, she said, it was her ‘policy’ as head of the regulator not to speak in the chamber on these issues, as it would be ‘inappropriate’ to give ‘ running commentary’. Besides, she added, ‘there is more to the job than speaking’, highlighting her work reading and voting on legislation, and giving evidence to committees. She argues that attending debates – even when she doesn’t contribute – offers more understanding ‘ than one would glean sitting in front of Parliament TV’.
Maybe so, but it also doesn’t pay £ 4,684 a month to watch Parliament TV at home.
THE Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), set up after the MPs’ expenses scandal, today poses no deterrent to l azy, greedy parliamentarians who regularly break the rules because the regulator is protecting them from public exposure.
In the last tax year, 84 MPs failed to submit receipts for their claims within the 120-day deadline. Regardless, Ipsa paid the claims – totalling £44,000 – a Freedom of Information request has shown, but refuses to identify the culprits because it would, it claims, ‘endanger the safety’ of the MPs. Not only that, the regulator defended the rule-breakers, saying: ‘MPs have not been immune to the negative aspects of the pandemic.’
Pity Ipsa was not so solicitous about the personal details of 216 parliamentary staffers, whose salaries and payroll numbers were accidentally uploaded to the so-called watchdog’s website in a ‘serious data breach’. Writs are now flying.