The Government has tabled an amendment in the House of Commons to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that will provide that MPs and Lords Temporal are to be deemed to be resident and domiciled in the UK for the purposes of Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax.  Assuming the amendment and the Bill itself is passed, members of both Houses will be liable to pay these taxes on their worldwide income, gains and assets.

This will stop the extraordinary anomaly whereby MPs and Peers can sit and vote in the UK Parliament but not properly pay UK taxation.

These new rules will come into effect for MPs after the General Election as soon as an MP takes the oath in Parliament.  In the House of Lords, all Peers appointed to the House after the Bill has received Royal Assent will have the new tax rules applied as soon as they take their seats. 

For existing members of the House of Lords, they will have three months from the date the Bill receives the Royal Assent to – in effect – resign their membership of the House if they do not wish to be deemed resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes.

The only exception will be the twenty-six Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England.  This is because their membership of the House of Lords is inextricably linked to the posts they hold in the Church – I assume in practice all of them will be resident and domiciled in the UK.

Finally, the provisions will apply for the whole of the 2010-11 tax year, irrespective of the date of the General Election.

I’ve just been to the launch of London Councils’ “Manifesto for London”.  This document – developed on a cross-Party basis following consultation with a range of stake-holders – is an ambitious challenge to the Government (whatever its composition following the General Election) to devolve more responsibility for local services to the London Boroughs. 

(The launch itself was well-attended in the House of Commons Members Dining Room.  I couldn’t help noticing that all five speakers were white men – a platform that would never have happened from 1995-2000 when I chaired the organisation, then called the Association of London Government.)

The Manifesto is not a plea for money and resources, although London Councils continues to make the case that London should receive an appropriate fair share of the national tax take to reflect both the needs of London’s population but also its pivotal role as the engine of the UK economy.  Indeed it was being suggested that the devolution proposed and the resulting integration with existing Borough services could deliver more effective services at less cost than the present arrangements.  (This may well be true eventually, but there would undoubtedly be a not insubstantial cost of reorganisation associated with the proposals.)

Mayor Jules Pipe, Leader of the Labour Group on London Councils, made the interesting point that devolution was something that all the major political parties at national level would claim to support (indeed, the Manifesto takes the Government’s Total Place concept to the next stage).  He argued that the devolution proposed could lead to more active engagement with local politics with Labour Councils being able to put forward a distinctive Labour vision for their communities, Conservative Councils being able to put forward a distinctive Conservative vision, and Liberal Democrat Councils being able to put forward a Liberal Democrat vision (I have to confess that I am not sure what this third vision would look like …..).

Some of the proposals are potentially very far-reaching and extremely radical.

The Manifesto for example would:

• Make Primary Care Trusts’ non-acute care budgets accountable to the London borough in which they operate, to allow boroughs to direct those budgets to local need and integrate health and other care services with NHS spending;
• Co-ordinate the funding streams of national back-to-work schemes and make them accountable to London boroughs;
• Devolve London’s Skills Funding Agency resources to the London boroughs,  allowing boroughs to develop schemes tailored to the specific needs of their residents;
• Devolve neighbourhood policing budgets to enable boroughs to commission the services their communities need from the MPS; and
• Support boroughs’ work to integrate offender management, including financial incentives, and then make boroughs publicly accountable for their success in reducing re-offending.

The first of these examples would be a dramatic – but entirely sensible – reorientation of the way in which local health services and care are delivered.  As I have commented before, such a move would provide local democratic ownership of local health service decisions and it would encourage a much more seamless pattern of delivery with local care services.

The second and third of these recognise that the skills agenda and the need to re-equip people for work have never been effectively delivered by the existing bureaucratic quangoes in London and a local focus on what is seen to be effective and best meets the needs of local people is surely a step forward.

The fourth proposal – passing local policing budgets to Boroughs enabling them to purchase services from the Metropolitan Police – will no doubt provoke a serious attack of nerves in New Scotland Yard and I am not sure that Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, the new Chair-designate of the Metropolitan Police Authority, will relish having so much of his new train-set taken away before he has had a chance to play with it.  However, the configuration of neighbourhood policing – a role which in any event relies on partnership at community level – would certainly be made more responsive with such an arrangement and would, if properly defined, insulate and protect those other parts of policing that are essential (but less immediately visible).

The final example – devolving responsibility for offender management – is no less radical, but would build on some excellent initiatives that have already been trialled in London with a view to reducing re-offending.

I suspect the proposals as a whole may be rather too much for post-Election Government Ministers to swallow.  However, the proposals deserve serious consideration and it will be interesting to hear whether any convincing  justifications are given for not taking them forward.

The latest appalling news from Baghdad that at least forty people have been killed by a female suicide bomber is a timely reminder that simple profiling will never be enough to combat determined terrorists.

The idea that by stopping and searching all young Asian males that you would significantly reduce the risk of suicide bombing is a fallacy.  As this news reminds us, not all such bombers are males.  Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber, was not Asian and was a convert to Islam.  And, of course, not all Asians are Muslims, nor are all Muslims Asian.  And most important of all, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists and are not potential terrorists.

Crude profiling will not only be ineffective, but it will increasingly alienate precisely those people that the authorities need to be working with if they are to be effective in combatting terrorism.

In the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the most senior counter-terrorist police officer in the UK, made the case for profiling.  But – and it is a big but – he was NOT arguing for crude profiling.  He was arguing for “intelligent” profiling.  And, yes, this does involve stopping people based on appearance and behaviour, but it is also about ” using “common sense” and “street-craft” to recognise suspicious behaviour.”

The Telegraph report goes on (mainly focussing on stops at airports):

“Mr Yates called for searches to be carried out using intelligence databases, and “sharp thinking” on the ground.

He said that suspicions should be aroused by an individual’s personal history and pattern of travel, how they bought their ticket, and their luggage.

The anti-terrorism chief continued: “At the same time, we must encourage police and security staff to use their experience, their street-craft – their ‘nous’. This means considering a range of factors – dress, body language, behaviour or simply something that’s ‘not quite right’.

“This puts the onus on our staff to be intelligent and to act with common sense.””

This is an approach that most people would support and it is right that this is the ethos now being promoted by the Metropolitan Police.  For it to work, of course, there also needs to be a rigorous system of management supervision and external scrutiny to make sure that the policy is not abused or mis-applied.

At the last meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority – all of two months ago – I raised the Human Rights Watch report, entitled “Cruel Britannia” in which five cases were reported of individuals who had been tortured overseas and alleged that British officials were involved.  I sought assurances about Metropolitan Police involvement in any of the cases.

At the time, the Commissioner said he had no reason to believe that any Metropolitan Police officers were involved, but he would check and report back.  He has now done so and formally reported to the Authority today that:

“We can confirm that we are satisfied that there can be no basis to any allegation that MPS officers could have been complicit in torture.”

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and Mayor Boris Johnson is not in the Chair.  Yesterday, he announced that he was leaving the Police Authority and today he is in …..

Davos!

Actually, he missed the January 2009 meeting because of a trip to Davos a year ago, but that time he didn’t feel the need to resign from the Authority, as well.  I commented then on Mayor Boris Johnson’s Macavity-like characteristics.

So what is the new Macavity-lite MPA like?

Well, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM (the UVCDMKMAM as was) is in the Chair and he’s loving it!

And Jenny Jones, Dee Doocey, Caroline Pidgeon and Joanne McCartney are all behaving as if someone shot their fox (I am resisting the temptation – just – to wander off into an extended metaphor about blonde-haired Mayors, ginger cats and red foxes called Basil Brush).  Much of their fun in the last fifteen months had been trying to lure the Mayor into some lovingly constructed elephant-trap.  Ensnaring Kit Malthouse would not provide the same gratification, so instead they are trying to goad him into losing his temper.  But he is in such a good mood at finally becoming MPA Chair (technically, he is not yet Chair because there is still to be a formal confirmation process through the London Assembly, but he has already had his name-plate changed) that none of it is working ….. so far.

The first signs of irritation from him are reserved for Councillor Chris Robbins, Leader of Waltham Forest Council, who has brought along a petition asking for an extra 120 police officers for his Borough, and suggestions from Jennette Arnold that the Resource Allocation Formula should be changed.  However, he recovers his composure and sweetness and light reign:  Waltham Forest go away thinking they may get something (probably not much) and no full-blown review of the Formula is conceded.

Lord Paul Myners, who is rapidly becoming Labour Peers’ favourite Ministerial performer at Lords’ Question Time, was at it again this afternoon.  When Lord Bilimoria, whom he squelched on a previous occasion, put it to him that:

“It is reported that the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, agrees with President Obama’s proposals for reform. Do the Government also agree with President Obama’s reforms and do they intend to implement them?”

The magisterial response was:

“I always welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, from the Cross Benches. I hesitate to correct him but last Thursday evening Mr George Osborne welcomed President Obama’s statement and by Friday morning he had decided that he no longer welcomed it. We must tune in regularly to our wirelesses to ensure that we are up to date with the Tory thinking on this and so many other matters.”

He then went on to point out:

“There are aspects of the Obama proposals which clearly make a considerable degree of sense for the American situation with large investment banks. There are also concepts around the levy which are commendable and on which we and other G7 countries are working to ensure that in the future the banking system is more resilient and, if there is failure, that failure is borne by the shareholders, the subordinated creditors and the management of the banks. However, the Obama proposal is not necessary in this country; we have already taken the appropriate actions.”

The remaining exchanges were as follows:

“Lord Clinton-Davis: What discussions have taken place between the Obama Administration and the Government to ensure that there is an international response to the banking crisis?

Lord Myners: Banking resilience, regulation and capitalisation are high on the agenda for the G20. We are in regular contact with G20 countries. I met officials from the Obama Administration on Monday to talk about this and other matters.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Does the noble Lord agree that some of the banks have their priorities totally wrong? They give management top priority, deal last with the customer and God help the shareholder in between.

Lord Myners: The noble Lord says something very perceptive and correct. Last week I suggested in the House that banks which follow policies on bonuses that were perceived to be reckless would risk alienating their customers, who would choose to move their business. I urge UK banks, in particular, to be able to evidence that they have exercised real restraint and that bonuses reward smart decisions made by good people, with the overall prosperity of the franchise in mind, rather than rewarding reckless gambling or entirely fortuitous external circumstances.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister confident that those banks in which the Government have a very large shareholding have entirely complied in their own decisions with what he has said to us?

Lord Myners: The decisions about bonuses at Lloyds Banking Group and RBS have not been made but we have already been very clear that UK Financial Investments on behalf of the taxpayer will take a very active interest in this area. I am much encouraged by the comments of Mr Stephen Hester, who I think is doing a very good job at Royal Bank of Scotland, that he will not recommend or seek any bonus payments beyond those which he believes are absolutely necessary to protect the bank, and in so doing protect the value of the taxpayer’s investment in his bank.

Lord Newby: The Minister has just said that the Government have already taken appropriate action in respect of the banks but yesterday, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, the Governor of the Bank of England said:

“We cannot allow ourselves to be kept hostage to institutions that are so big”,

and he appeared to support the Obama proposals. Why do the Government think the governor is wrong?

Lord Myners: The governor said many things yesterday with which we are in complete agreement and he is supporting the moves we are taking to improve the strengths of the banking system. There is no evidence that size in itself was the source of individual bank failures. Large banks failed, but so did small banks. We need to ensure that the totality of the banking system is strong and that will be addressed by higher capital, requirements for much higher levels of liquidity and the concept of living wills, which will require banks to put in place arrangements that will allow the failing part of a bank to be isolated and separated from the remainder of the bank without imposing consequential claim on the taxpayer. The taxpayer should never, ever again be expected to bail out the folly and mischief of bad decisions made by bankers.”

Mayor Boris Johnson has given his representative on Planet Policing, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse, a late Christmas present.  He has just announced his resignation and that the former UVCDMKMAM will be the new Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

I have been predicting this move for a long time and Kit Malthouse has been barely able to contain his impatience for this formal recognition that he has been de facto acting as Chair of the Authority for the last eighteen months.

The Mayor is able to dress this up with “My work is done – policing now in safe hands – new Commissioner – new team of Assistant Commissioners – crime falling – Kit’s capable hand on tiller” etc etc.

The real reasons are, of course, that:

• no Mayor of London really has the time to be Mayor and be a hands-on-tiller detail-minding Chair of the Police Authority
• it avoids any conflicts of interest if the police start investigating any of your chums
• any sensible Mayor wants to have a bit of distance between himself and policing in case/for when things go wrong

This last point is, of course, crucial:  Mayor Boris Johnson now has TWO people to sack/say he no longer has confidence in if things go wrong – the Commissioner and Kit Malthouse.

On Friday, I reported that the Conservative Party’s local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions had refused to follow the official Cameron line and pull out of the European Peoples Party grouping.

Over the last few days, however, the position has changed and they are now going to try and form a European Conservatives and Reformist Group on the CoR.

When asked whether he was being bullied by the national Conservative Party, Councillor Gordon Keymer, Leader of the UK delegation, as well as the Tory group on the delegation, to the Committee of the Regions, refused to comment, saying “It’s an internal matter”.

Thumb-screws all round?  Or was it the threat of knee-capping?

And what did Roger Evans, Leader of the Conservatives on the London Assembly and one-time novellist, have to say about the matter?

I have always taken the view that there will be scepticism and cynicism in any Host City about hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games until just a week or two before the Games start and then it will vanish and everyone will suddenly be a convert.  I confidently expect that to be the process in London as we get closer to 2012, unless Mayor Boris Johnson fails to invest properly over the next two years and himself builds cynicism rather than enthusiasm.

I am therefore very pleased to have had the opportunity to be in Vancouver for a few days with only three weeks to go before the City hosts the 2010 Winter Olympics, so that I can see whether my theory is borne out.

On balance, I think it is.  There is no doubt that local enthusiam is building: young people are excited and it is mainly locals that are currently swamping the Official Merchandise outlets (where they are finding that they can only buy using cash or a VISA cards – as VISA is an official sponsor, Mastercard and American Express are forbidden).

Businesses are preparing for the rush of visitors and are expecting a serious boost to the provincial economy.  Meanwhile, the Cultural Olympiad is in full swing – with an impressive emphasis on events with a link to Canada’s First Nations (the indigenous Indian communities prior to colonial invasion).

So has cynicism disappeared?  Not entirely.  One cause is the weather: it is simply too warm.  One of the Olympic ski runs has had to be closed because of warm weather and heavy rain.  And the cynics tell me that this was entirely predictable.  This is an El Nino year when warmer ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific bring a milder winter to Western Canada.  (An El Nino year is usually preceded the previous year with a colder-than-normal winter and this is what happened in 2009 when Vancouver was totally snow-bound in January.)  These meteorological events are on a five-year cycle (or so I was told) and it should have been obvious to all concerned when Vancouver was bidding for 2010 that a mild winter would be on the cards – now in 2014 (the winter before the next El Nino year) would have been an ideal Games to bid for ….

And there are moans at the Mayor (so this is probably another reason why Boris Johnson won’t stand again in May 2012) for the proposed road closures and the extra costs falling on the City.

And there is still a legacy from the February 2003 plebiscite called in Vancouver on whether to support the Bid.  This was before the final decision by the International Olympic Committee was taken on the location of the 2010 Games, but after Vancouver was named as a candidate city and had signed legal agreements committing it to host the games if selected.  Fortunately, citizens of the City voted heavily in favour of proceeding with the Bid, but the manouevre was seen as deeply cynical: only citizens of Vancouver itself (and not those from the rest of Greater Vancouver) could vote; it could easily have had a negative impact on the IOC vote (which would have meant all the bid costs would have been in vain); and above all it would have been impossible to pull out if the plebiscite vote had gone the other way.  Apparently, the Mayor “was just playing politics” – now where have we heard that before?

I see that the Conservative local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions have refused to follow the official Cameron line on Europe and pull out of European Peoples Party Group.  They say that to have left the EPP Group would have been “impractical”, that to do so would have made it “much more difficult to work effectively” and would have taken them out of a grouping that “Commissioners actually pay attention to.”

So now we know: Tory local government politicians are more sensible than their national leadership.  Of course, this may not be saying very much ……