Forum Topic

Ann Keen did not have private health treatment

The private hospital treatment which was itemised on Ann Keen's redacted expense claim was NOT for her - it was for a member of staff.The staff member needed an Occupational Health Assessment as a result of sustaining an occuptional injury. The staff member had private health insurance and Ann was advised by the House of Commons authorities that the Blackheath was the best place to go for this.This event took place in 2005 at a time when this service was (apparantly) not avilable on the NHS - although thanks to Ann and the rest of Labour's health team the NHS has improved since then. (Although, of course, they will not get any thanks for that from anyone on this forum).Ann Keen does not have private health because she believes in the national health system.Various other allegations have been made against Ann on this and the W4 forum many of which are bogus (and will hopefully be proved to be so in the coming days and weeks). The most fanciful is that she has a third property (apparently a farm in Wales?!). complete and utter tosh. But it won't stop her persecuters from repeating it.

Robin Taylor ● 6344d22 Comments

Well if it's that clean cut and simple, Why is it that she or her husband have not got the ability to put up the facts clearly and simply rather than use a stooge with no credibility to do all their work for them ?They have had more time to set the record straight than any other MPs and yet have totally evaded clear and honest explanation and proof.That alone speaks volumes whatever ones political colours may be.At least some MPs have faced their constituents openly and faced the music rather than get 'pals' to do it for them.

Michael Brandt ● 6344d

Robin,Genuine question which I could easily also direct at David Giles - what 'kick' do you get out of politics ?.  I simply don't understand what motivates people like yourself and David to get so 'passionate' about politics and politicians to feel the need to always come to their defence ?.Just bemuses me as to what makes you tick, no offence meant :-)Adam

Adam Beamish ● 6344d

"Various other allegations have been made against Ann on this and the W4 forum many of which are bogus (and will hopefully be proved to be so in the coming days and weeks). The most fanciful is that she has a third property (apparently a farm in Wales?!). complete and utter tosh."That's good to have your denial about the Welsh Farm rumour  No doubt you have formally established that fact from Mrs Keen.  We can now put that allegation to bed.  PS: Do the Kinnocks have a farm?

Jim Lawes ● 6344d

"a stooge with no credibility".Thanks, Michael."they have had more time to set the record straight than any other MPs".The issue of the redacted private health claim is only about 72 hours old. They had to clear it with the former employee first."rather than get their pals to do it for them".They haven't asked me to do anything. I'm just trying to inject some fairness and balance into a debate which has become unpleasant, hysterical, monotonous and one-sided.

Robin Taylor ● 6344d

Adam,Once politics is in your system you cannot get it out.Believe me, you're lucky not being involved. Take it all with a healthy does of scepticism, that's my advice.

Robin Taylor ● 6344d

It is true that the volume (in size and noise) of complaints and criticism of our local MPs has become a bit hysterical and is becoming monotonous.However, it is with good reason that many complain. Our MPs are rightly expected to have a good sense of judgement - particularly on their own behaviour. All the MPs who felt it acceptable to claim as much as they could only did so when they felt the details would be safe from public scrutiny. This is suspect at best.When the secrecy was over the MPs hid behind claims that it was all within the rules. This is now deeply suspect - it means they felt they were not obliged to apply any judgement on their behaviour and actions. For that reason they should be roundly criticised.There is real need for at least an apology and an acknowledge of this fundamental error of judgement and weakness of standards. Actually, for such a significant failing it is not unreasonable that many should step aside at the earliest opportunity. Their actions are evidence of deep, underlying failure to apply any level of decent judgement and standards.Because of this unwillingness to ackowledge such an error in any way (even when they pay back a bit of their claims) the hysteria will continue. And, you know, they deserve to be hounded on this one. Even if in the scale of things (world recession, etc.) it is actually small beer. It is a bed that they have made - so please do not bother to stand in the way of this tide of criticism. It is not in your gift to stop the criticism. The only people who can stop it are the MPs themselves.

Alan Clark ● 6344d

I'm of a different view - I don't expect anything more or anything less from MP's than I do from professional sportsmen, businessmen with mega salaries etc.  They're human beings at the end of the day and rightly or wrongly they are occasionally going to exploit loopholes in any system that is in place, just like everyone else does.  Morally it's wrong, but morals don't rule the world.Personally, it really doesn't bother me.  Whether it's the Keens, Mary McLeod or Joe Bloggs as my MP means nothing to me and won't affect my day to day life.  I've never subscribed to the idea that MP's are elected to serve their constituency, and to an extent I have the same view about elected Councillors, because the constiutents aren't all daleks with the same view and opinions on every matter.

Adam Beamish ● 6344d

Robin,If the staff member had private health insurance, why did the tax payer foot the bill?If the staff member sustained an occupational injury while working for Ann K££n this would suggest a degree of negligence. Again, why should the tax payer be out of pocket?As you seem to know so much perhaps you could give us some more details about this case, like the nature of the injury and how this injury came about.

Andrew Sibley ● 6344d

Adam, your view seems to imply that exploitation is acceptable. If so, that's a bad, sad world you offer.Being an MP is not the same as being a professional business person or sports person. An MP is there with an obligation to represent the people. They carry a public duty. They are empowered to make decisions on our behalf - some of which are moral decisions. This, to me, is the clear link between the standards we should expect from them and the standards they have met. (And that's before we get onto the issue of taking money from the public purse - rather than that of a company or sports club or sponsor.)

Alan Clark ● 6344d

The staff member had private health insurance and Ann was advised by the House of Commons authorities that the Blackheath was the best place to go for this.An ex nurse being advised by the Commons authorities, are you kidding Robin? We have many teaching hospitals in the NHS, and what she (Mrs Keen) did (if true?) was unforgivable. And since when do taxpayers foot the bill for staff, not forgetting that she/he had private  insurance

Tony Stavides ● 6344d

I know you can say this about many things but personally I don't just understand why people get so worked up about politics.My view of the world is very simple and based upon the natural principles of evolution.  The strong survive, the weak fall.  That's the way it's meant to be.  The strong should do their bit to assist to weak, but shouldn't be expected to carry the weak.Local issues that affect me directly on a day to day basis I'll make an issue of, like roadworks which hinder my journey to work etc.  Whether the MP claims £2 or £2000 from the taxpayer, whilst I accept it is morally wrong, isn't going to make any difference to my finances, if it doesn't go to the MP it'll go somewhere else.Life is too short...

Adam Beamish ● 6344d

Robin: your sentence (below) leaves me suspicious. Was it her member of staff? Or was it her husband's member of staff? And if so, who? Was it Alan Keen's son?"The private hospital treatment which was itemised on Ann Keen's redacted expense claim was NOT for her - it was for a member of staff."I think the voters should be told.

Stuart Parrott ● 6344d

Stuart,It wasn't for Alan Keen's son because he's not employed by Ann. My understanding is that their right to the consultation was part of their contract of employment. Apart from that, I think they are entitled to confidentiality: that's why details were redacted.Andrew,Somebody raised a similar query (relating to private health insurance) on the W4 forum. I corrected my original statement by quoting Ann Keen's precise wording: "As my member of staff had PERSONAL ACCESS (my emphasis) to healthcare provided by the private sector at Blackheath Hospital, they chose to manage their care in this way."I'm not quite sure what this means but I think you are right: private health insurance was not involved (as this would not have incurred a bill). But the bottom line is that Ann herself did not (and would not) have private medical treatment.Andy, I understand that you are employed by the council tax payer to work for the ICG group. Somebody has asked me if you get paid a bonus for posting on this site: I told them that I thought this would be unlikely. However, do you post anti-Keen propaganda on this site as part of your (taxpayer-funded) role?

Robin Taylor ● 6344d

Wow Adam - you must be taking the michael here. This concept, if you truly believe in it, is worthy of a whole new thread. We shouldn't confuse or dilute the posts about the Keen's expenses with this more esoteric discussion.However, I must take issue with your survival of the fittest mindset.  What is the basis that this is 'the way it is meant to be' ? What bizarre application of Darwinian theory is this? It smacks of the simplistic (and wrong)19th century interpretation of the survival of the species concepts.And the notion that something that happens outside your immediate environment is a non-issue - strewth, this is the statement of the very simple, the very parochial or the very selfish. Let me guess - you do not exercise your franchise. You think sport is more important than politics. You confuse party politics with politic issues. You prefer to remain aloof from big issues and scoff and those who get worked up by them "it won't make any difference whatever you say". You tend not to buy any quality newspapers - waste of money and ink. You prefer to avoid paying tax whenever possible - its better to keep your own money. You agree with thatcher's comment about there being no such thing as society any more. Social provision (housing, education, health) all bad; private everything all good. Ring any bells?

Alan Clark ● 6344d

Miles off in some ways !.  Yep I'm a sports fan, both watching and participating, but equally I don't understand people who get terribly upset or angry when their team loses...unless the player is a personal friend or family member.I don't buy newspapers anymore, read The Times in the office and used to buy the Telegraph.  I think the Daily Mail is the paper equivalent of the gutter.I'm taxed a small fortune by the government and always have been.  I extremely reluctantly went on the dole for afew weeks about 2 years ago (for a period of 8 weeks) when I was out of work and self-funded myself for 6 months, and hated the idea of getting money from the state.I think the worlds problems result from over-population.  I'm far more passionate about animal rights than human rights.Funnily enough I'd also like to think I'm less judgemental than most people, and friends have frequently said I'm one of the most genuine, unselfish, dependable and generous individuals they've ever met.  Me, I'm just me, nothing more nothing less.

Adam Beamish ● 6344d

"I'm not quite sure what this means but I think you are right: private health insurance was not involved (as this would not have incurred a bill). But the bottom line is that Ann herself did not (and would not) have private medical treatment." Nobody is quite sure what this means because it is phrased in such a way as to confuse the public. The question remains - if our MP sent a member of her staff for private assessment and the taxpayer already pays for said staff member to have private medical insurance in terms of the House of Commons contracts - what exactly did Mrs Keen submit her claim for?

Steve Taylor ● 6343d

Alan,Reflecting on both your contributions and my contributions I'd rather we forget them.  Things people write on here get taken completely out of context - I made a comment earlier on another thread about the Stockwell shooting, and people immediately thought I was critising the Met Police, when I wasn't at all, I was simply making the point that regardless of someone is or isn't disguised tragic consequences will inevitably occasionally result.I have my quirks, we all do, I don't necessarily conform to any particular identity or label, but everyone who knows me would hopefully say that they find me a genuinely decent, helpful bloke, and that's all that matters.

Adam Beamish ● 6343d

"and the taxpayer already pays for said staff member to have private medical insurance"Oh dear, yet another mistaken assumption about this case.The employee of Ann Keen suffered an injury at work.  From the details that weren't redacted, it seems to have been a back injury.  It seems probable from what we have been told that the employee had private medical insurance, and used that to obtain treatment for her injury.  There is no suggestion that I am aware that the insurance was subsidised in any way. When the employee was preparing to return to work, Ann Keen asked her to undergo an Occupational Health Assessment.  This is a recommended action for an employer to take under Health & Safety at Work regulations.  Such assessments are available under the NHS or privately, but in either case have to be paid for by the employer.It seems likely that the employee expressed a preference that the consultant who had already been treating her should do the assessment.  Personally, I have no ideological objection to this, and the employer would have to pay in any case.  As such it is clearly an expense that is covered by the MPs' expenses scheme, and rightly so in my view. The only reason it has attracted so much attention is because of careless reporting or jumping to conclusions by both the Telegraph and Robin Taylor.It's peanuts compared with the 1st/2nd home issue.

Richard Jennings ● 6343d

I am looking forward to hearing how Ruth Kelly gets on in her hunt for a state school for her son who is affected by Dyslexia.  He was 9 when removed so would be 11 or 12, now.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jan/10/uk.schools

Sarah Felstead ● 6343d

"I am looking forward to hearing how Ruth Kelly gets on in her hunt for a state school for her son who is affected by Dyslexia"Have no fear Sarah, her colleague Ed Balls will ensure there will be a place, no hunting will be necessary........

Tony Stavides ● 6343d

... not if it means undue delay/inconvenience for a member of her staff.  Anyway, it's an opportunity to assess the competition.

Richard Jennings ● 6342d

LOL. For someone that does not even live in the borough you seem to know an awful lot about those that do. You must have a spy at the Civic Centre feeding you little snippets of information from time to time.You’ll be sorry to hear that my employment is no secret and totally irrelevant to this debate. Unlike you Robin, I live in Isleworth and by default, this makes me a constituent of Ann K££n. That means that I am just as entitled to query her expenses as any other of her constituents. And for the record, I am not given a daily list of ‘anti Keen propaganda’ to post on this forum by my superiors. It’s also odd that you start your reply by referring to me as "Andrew", then two paragraphs later you refer to me as "Andy". Please explain???

Andrew Sibley ● 6342d