Rob Shorrock

In response to a letter defending Cllr Martin Hills decision to claim twice the accommodation allowance permissible when he become stuck in London's Park Lane Intercontinental hotel. My original letter is here and Cllr Ian Stokes letter can be found here

In considering the plight of Cllr Hill, marooned in London's 240 pounds a night Intercontinental Hotel as he represents the people of Lincolnshire, Cllr Stokes gives the game away and reveals a lot about the  Lincolnshire Tories mindset in these basic matters. In trying to defend Cllr Hill, he essentially damns him even further. For Cllr Stokes the issue, as he sees it, is a scurrilous attack on a noble, good and  hardworking councillor  stuck in London as he selflessly represents the people of Lincolnshire. Why shouldn't he be able to claim almost twice the permissible rate for accommodation? By Cllr Stokes logic he could just claim what he liked simply on the basis that he believes he works hard. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all do the same?

Cllr Hill submitted a claim twice the level of the official entitlement. I have seen LCCs schedule for members expenses and it includes some discretion for real emergencies. But this wasn't a real emergency. Cllr Hill decided to go to the conference and failed to plan how he would get home. Indeed, he probably could have got a taxi cab back to Lincoln for less than what he claimed here. He certainly could have got a cheaper hotel less than 10 minutes walk away, well within his allowance. In fact, I am pretty sure the conference organisers would have been able to help find him somewhere if he decided to ask.

Interestingly, the decision whether or not to grant an application is made, according to the allowances schedule, by the Director of Resources an employed officer of the council whose boss is, you guessed it, Cllr Martin Hill!

The reality here is that Cllr Hill tried it on and stepped over a line that he himself dug deep into the sand after the atrocious actions of Jim Speechly (Lincs Tory leader jailed for attempting to increase the value of his land by influencing a highway routing decision. See here) and his lickspittle acolytes who continued to defend him after the event.

 

By making this claim and trying to argue as Leader of the Council that it was a decison made by others and he is just sticking by it is deeply disingenuous. Cllr Stoke's misguided attempt to defend the indefensible is part of the problem; he, and inevitably others, by defending bad decision-making inculcate a culture of absolute invulnerability in our leaders and, in so doing, they end of up discrediting themselves.

Cllrs allowances and expenses are recommended externally and agreed by council. I defy any councillor in Lincolnshire to argue that this is a proper application of the allowances system. Well, apart from Cllr Stokes, of course, who I am sure will be busy out on his constituents doorsteps explaining why it it was OK for Cllr Hill to do this.