Six MP's and peers may face fraud charges
Discussion
I know it's only they 'may' face charges but it's a start.
And now some amusing excuses on the expenses scandal:
Telegraph said:
Keir Starmer, the country’s top prosecutor, is expected to make a decision on whether to prosecute the politicians as early as January, before a General Election.
The Director of Public Prosecutions will decide whether the MPs and peers face court on counts of fraud, which carries a maximum sentence on conviction of 10 years, or false accounting, for which the maximum penalty is up to seven years.
Police and criminal lawyers are confident that charges will be brought.
A team of detectives have been assessing and investigating cases for the past five months since The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files investigation disclosed widespread abuse of parliamentary allowances.
They are now on the verge of finalising their files to send to prosecutors.
A Westminster source said: “We have heard that things are about to come to a head”. A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said that they had not yet received files, but it is understood that there are expected imminently.
Police are liaising with Sir Thomas Legg, who is carrying out a full audit of MPs expenses, and are believed to have taken witness statements from senior civil servants and members of the Fees Office who processed the suspected claims. Witnesses, including constituency workers and banking officials, have also been interviewed by police as detectives build up a file of evidence.
A small team of officers who specialise in financial investigations have carried out a low profile inquiry, with no arrests. It is believed that MPs and peers have co-operated with requests from them for evidence from their emails and bank statements.
The most serious suspected frauds are considered to be those of Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor who both claimed thousands of pounds for “phantom” mortgages that they had already paid off.
Mr Morley, the former agriculture minister, claimed £16,800 for a mortgage that did not exist and also admitted wrongly claiming £20,000 for mortgage capital repayments in contravention of rules.
Mr Chaytor admitted making an “unforgiveable error” in “accounting procedures” when claiming almost £13,000 in interest for a mortgage that he had paid off. Police will also be interested in why the Bury North MP also claimed almost £5,000 under his office allowances to pay his daughter, Sarah Chaytor, under an assumed name of “Sarah Rastrick’’.
Mr Devine, a Scottish Labour MP, submitted invoices for electrical work worth £2,157 from a company with an allegedly fake address and an invalid VAT number.
So what are the chances of them actually facing legal action do we reckon or will they be saved by their own political parties?The Director of Public Prosecutions will decide whether the MPs and peers face court on counts of fraud, which carries a maximum sentence on conviction of 10 years, or false accounting, for which the maximum penalty is up to seven years.
Police and criminal lawyers are confident that charges will be brought.
A team of detectives have been assessing and investigating cases for the past five months since The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files investigation disclosed widespread abuse of parliamentary allowances.
They are now on the verge of finalising their files to send to prosecutors.
A Westminster source said: “We have heard that things are about to come to a head”. A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said that they had not yet received files, but it is understood that there are expected imminently.
Police are liaising with Sir Thomas Legg, who is carrying out a full audit of MPs expenses, and are believed to have taken witness statements from senior civil servants and members of the Fees Office who processed the suspected claims. Witnesses, including constituency workers and banking officials, have also been interviewed by police as detectives build up a file of evidence.
A small team of officers who specialise in financial investigations have carried out a low profile inquiry, with no arrests. It is believed that MPs and peers have co-operated with requests from them for evidence from their emails and bank statements.
The most serious suspected frauds are considered to be those of Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor who both claimed thousands of pounds for “phantom” mortgages that they had already paid off.
Mr Morley, the former agriculture minister, claimed £16,800 for a mortgage that did not exist and also admitted wrongly claiming £20,000 for mortgage capital repayments in contravention of rules.
Mr Chaytor admitted making an “unforgiveable error” in “accounting procedures” when claiming almost £13,000 in interest for a mortgage that he had paid off. Police will also be interested in why the Bury North MP also claimed almost £5,000 under his office allowances to pay his daughter, Sarah Chaytor, under an assumed name of “Sarah Rastrick’’.
Mr Devine, a Scottish Labour MP, submitted invoices for electrical work worth £2,157 from a company with an allegedly fake address and an invalid VAT number.
And now some amusing excuses on the expenses scandal:
Nick Clegg said:
Liberal Democrat leader, who claimed for gardening
“The garden came with the house. It was in a totally derelict state and had not been touched in 30 years... it was a real eyesore for the neighbours. It is quite right, since I am not there during the week, it seems to me, that I use the allowance available to me, to make sure that it is in good basic maintained order, which it is now.”
“The garden came with the house. It was in a totally derelict state and had not been touched in 30 years... it was a real eyesore for the neighbours. It is quite right, since I am not there during the week, it seems to me, that I use the allowance available to me, to make sure that it is in good basic maintained order, which it is now.”
Angus Robertson said:
SNP leader in Westminster, who claimed for a home cinema:
"All claims relate to my parliamentary work on behalf of my constituents.”
"All claims relate to my parliamentary work on behalf of my constituents.”
Lady Sylvia Hermon said:
Ulster Unionist MP who volunteered to repay a rent overpayment:
“I'm ...very angry that the Fees Office did not draw my attention to my mistakes at the time, especially as I had on various occasions specifically written on claim forms that I wanted them to be checked. The pressure on me was enormous at that time, pre-devolution, when every piece of Northern Ireland legislation had to go through the House of Commons and I was the only Ulster Unionist Voice.
You'll love this one!“I'm ...very angry that the Fees Office did not draw my attention to my mistakes at the time, especially as I had on various occasions specifically written on claim forms that I wanted them to be checked. The pressure on me was enormous at that time, pre-devolution, when every piece of Northern Ireland legislation had to go through the House of Commons and I was the only Ulster Unionist Voice.
Elliot Morley said:
Former agriculture minister, who claimed for a mortgage that did not exist:
"I do not believe any offence has been committed. I have reported this to the finance department and chief whip.”
"I do not believe any offence has been committed. I have reported this to the finance department and chief whip.”
Andrew MacKay said:
Who resigned as a Commons aide to David Cameron, the Tory leader after claiming his MP wife’s “second home” was his “main home”:
"This was all transparent, it was all approved and frankly until it was drawn to my attention it did not occur to me that it didn't pass the reasonableness test. Looking back now, it does look strange, I have clearly made an error of judgment for which I profusely apologise and I've done what I think is the right thing."
"This was all transparent, it was all approved and frankly until it was drawn to my attention it did not occur to me that it didn't pass the reasonableness test. Looking back now, it does look strange, I have clearly made an error of judgment for which I profusely apologise and I've done what I think is the right thing."
Shahid Malik said:
Shortly before stepping down as Justice Minister:
"I think this is a bit of a non-story to be honest. I have absolutely nothing to apologise for. I have done nothing wrong. I have not been at the periphery of the rules. I haven't abused the rules, I have been absolutely at the core of the rules."
"I think this is a bit of a non-story to be honest. I have absolutely nothing to apologise for. I have done nothing wrong. I have not been at the periphery of the rules. I haven't abused the rules, I have been absolutely at the core of the rules."
Ben Chapman said:
On overclaiming £15,000 on his mortgage:
"It is clear that I was mislead by the fees office into the arrangement in question"
"It is clear that I was mislead by the fees office into the arrangement in question"
Bill Wiggin said:
On claiming claimed £11,000 in phantom mortgage payments:
"I think people need to realise we are but human"
"I think people need to realise we are but human"
Anthony Steen said:
On spending tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on his million-pound country home:
"I've done nothing criminal, that's the most awful thing, and do you know what it's about? Jealousy. I've got a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral. It's a merchant's house of the 19th century. It's not particularly attractive, it just does me nicely"
The MP, who will stand down at the next election, later apologised "unreservedly" for the comments.
"I've done nothing criminal, that's the most awful thing, and do you know what it's about? Jealousy. I've got a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral. It's a merchant's house of the 19th century. It's not particularly attractive, it just does me nicely"
The MP, who will stand down at the next election, later apologised "unreservedly" for the comments.
Jack Straw said:
Justice Secretary, who claimed for double the amount of council tax he had paid:
"This, if I may say so, is the kind of thing that might happen not just to Members of Parliament. It is an error, which obviously I wish hadn't happened, but in circumstances in which I was incredibly busy during that period - that is not an excuse, it is just an explanation.
"This, if I may say so, is the kind of thing that might happen not just to Members of Parliament. It is an error, which obviously I wish hadn't happened, but in circumstances in which I was incredibly busy during that period - that is not an excuse, it is just an explanation.
Douglas Hogg said:
On why he was repaying the cost of maintaining his moat when he had insisted he had never claimed it in the first place:
"I recognise that the clearing of the moat was not positively excluded from the claim."
"I recognise that the clearing of the moat was not positively excluded from the claim."
Margaret Moran said:
Backbench Labour MP for Luton who claimed for dry rot treatment at the Southampton home where her husband is based:
"I have to have a proper family life and I can't do that unless I share the costs of the Southampton home with him. Any MP has to have a proper family life, they have to have support of their partner. I defy anybody to try and do a proper job, much less an incredibly pressured job, in which you work all hours, in the constituency, in Westminster and incredible pressure all the time.”
"I have to have a proper family life and I can't do that unless I share the costs of the Southampton home with him. Any MP has to have a proper family life, they have to have support of their partner. I defy anybody to try and do a proper job, much less an incredibly pressured job, in which you work all hours, in the constituency, in Westminster and incredible pressure all the time.”
Phil Woolas said:
Immigration Minister, who claimed for supermarket bills which included nappies and women’s clothes:
"What I have done is put receipts through from Tesco or wherever, but then claimed on the expenses form for the food and not for the other stuff. It is untrue that I claimed these things. It misunderstands the system. The receipts are there, but I never asked for or got money for these items. To suggest otherwise is disgusting."
A day later, on being shown his claim which showed he had claimed for the full receipt:
"I take your point and I understand the extrapolation.' I am being hung out to dry for being honest. The key points to remember is that I don't need to submit receipts to back the claims and I could have actually claimed £400 for the food."
"What I have done is put receipts through from Tesco or wherever, but then claimed on the expenses form for the food and not for the other stuff. It is untrue that I claimed these things. It misunderstands the system. The receipts are there, but I never asked for or got money for these items. To suggest otherwise is disgusting."
A day later, on being shown his claim which showed he had claimed for the full receipt:
"I take your point and I understand the extrapolation.' I am being hung out to dry for being honest. The key points to remember is that I don't need to submit receipts to back the claims and I could have actually claimed £400 for the food."
Shaun Woodward said:
Northern Ireland Secretary, appearing on the BBC’s Politics Show:
"I have just had a cup of tea in the green room getting ready for this programme, and there were biscuits next to the make-up tray. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer. Those biscuits were actually paid for by a taxpayer. I have, in my office, claimed for biscuits for my constituents. So my constituents should not have biscuits, but someone coming on this programme should?”
"I have just had a cup of tea in the green room getting ready for this programme, and there were biscuits next to the make-up tray. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer. Those biscuits were actually paid for by a taxpayer. I have, in my office, claimed for biscuits for my constituents. So my constituents should not have biscuits, but someone coming on this programme should?”
David Willetts said:
Shadow schools secretary, who claimed to have 25 light bulbs replaced:
"We had problems with our lighting system which had caused many lights to fuse and needed the attention of an electrician."
"We had problems with our lighting system which had caused many lights to fuse and needed the attention of an electrician."
Andrew George said:
Liberal Democrat MP, who claimed for a flat which his daughter stayed in:
"A third of the flat's cost was paid directly by me without taxpayer support. Is The Telegraph suggesting that my family should not be able to visit me in London?"
"A third of the flat's cost was paid directly by me without taxpayer support. Is The Telegraph suggesting that my family should not be able to visit me in London?"
Lembit Opik said:
Liberal Democrat MP, who was refused a claim for a television:
“If I think something is good enough value for me to spend my own money on... I think it would be reasonable for me to claim it. The technology was very expensive in 2005. Obviously I thought it was worth it."
I can't believe that more aren't being looked in to being prosecuted given those terrible excuses. “If I think something is good enough value for me to spend my own money on... I think it would be reasonable for me to claim it. The technology was very expensive in 2005. Obviously I thought it was worth it."
I disagree. I'm willing to bet a couple will be convicted of minor fraud charges, I can even foresee some custodial sentences. Sadly, this won't (directly) punish those responsible for claiming for duck houses etc and won't affect those that have benefitted from flipping or other such disagreeable but not illegal practices. Yet it will continue to cloud the murky waters surrounding how we wish political funding to be regulated.
A reasoned rational debate and conclusion to the whole matter is unlikely, sadly.
A reasoned rational debate and conclusion to the whole matter is unlikely, sadly.
The rumour is that one of those named is bang to rights. (I know who, but probably shouldn't say any More...)
Allegedly: When asked to provide avidence of mortgage payments, the MP supplied bank statements showing the monthly withdrawals. However, these went to a second account, not a mortgage account. Straight fraud. Going rate for the amount is 2 years.
If the story is true, and goes mainstream, it would be impossible to avoid a prosecution.
Allegedly: When asked to provide avidence of mortgage payments, the MP supplied bank statements showing the monthly withdrawals. However, these went to a second account, not a mortgage account. Straight fraud. Going rate for the amount is 2 years.
If the story is true, and goes mainstream, it would be impossible to avoid a prosecution.
I work every day, I get 20 days holiday a year and am allowed a further 20 days sickness before my wages stop and I get paid SSP only.
To enable me to get to work to earn my salary each month, I need a car or use public transport, these I pay for out of the salary I am paid each month.
I need somewhere to live and things to eat and wear. These things are paid from the salary my employer pays me every month.
Sometimes I may have to work away from my marital home...my employer picks up the bill for that including meals and travelling expenses incurred WHILST I AM WORKING...after that I pay for everything else out of the salary my employer pays me each month.
If I were to move closer to my place of work my boss may help me do that and even pay some sort of moving allowance, but what I furnish my new home with or any other expense I may have would be paid for from the salary I am paid each month.
If I pay a mortgage I would pay it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
When I have a holiday I pay for it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
I do not claim it back as some kind of twinning opportunity or fact finding mission.
In fact none of my non-work-related expenses get refunded buy my employer. Why? I go to work to earn the money to pay for them that's why.
To enable me to get to work to earn my salary each month, I need a car or use public transport, these I pay for out of the salary I am paid each month.
I need somewhere to live and things to eat and wear. These things are paid from the salary my employer pays me every month.
Sometimes I may have to work away from my marital home...my employer picks up the bill for that including meals and travelling expenses incurred WHILST I AM WORKING...after that I pay for everything else out of the salary my employer pays me each month.
If I were to move closer to my place of work my boss may help me do that and even pay some sort of moving allowance, but what I furnish my new home with or any other expense I may have would be paid for from the salary I am paid each month.
If I pay a mortgage I would pay it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
When I have a holiday I pay for it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
I do not claim it back as some kind of twinning opportunity or fact finding mission.
In fact none of my non-work-related expenses get refunded buy my employer. Why? I go to work to earn the money to pay for them that's why.
oldsoak said:
I work every day, I get 20 days holiday a year and am allowed a further 20 days sickness before my wages stop and I get paid SSP only.
To enable me to get to work to earn my salary each month, I need a car or use public transport, these I pay for out of the salary I am paid each month.
I need somewhere to live and things to eat and wear. These things are paid from the salary my employer pays me every month.
Sometimes I may have to work away from my marital home...my employer picks up the bill for that including meals and travelling expenses incurred WHILST I AM WORKING...after that I pay for everything else out of the salary my employer pays me each month.
If I were to move closer to my place of work my boss may help me do that and even pay some sort of moving allowance, but what I furnish my new home with or any other expense I may have would be paid for from the salary I am paid each month.
If I pay a mortgage I would pay it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
When I have a holiday I pay for it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
I do not claim it back as some kind of twinning opportunity or fact finding mission.
In fact none of my non-work-related expenses get refunded buy my employer. Why? I go to work to earn the money to pay for them that's why.
Good for you. And I doubt you'd find many politicians looking for their employer to treat them much differently then yours does to you. But the public must understand that the role of an MP does dictate they effectively have two work places, usually a long distance apart and in many circumstances a lot of overnight expenses are going to be incurred. Overnight expenses, of course, are only a small part of the "cost" of running a constituency MP. The difficulty is finding a suitable and "fair" means of defining what is reasonable practice and a reasonable expense for the employer to pay. There is understandably a great deal of disgust at some of the dodgy practices employed by many MPs but I fear that the public will continue to see any and all expense claims as unreasonable or outrageous, further alientating them from the political process.To enable me to get to work to earn my salary each month, I need a car or use public transport, these I pay for out of the salary I am paid each month.
I need somewhere to live and things to eat and wear. These things are paid from the salary my employer pays me every month.
Sometimes I may have to work away from my marital home...my employer picks up the bill for that including meals and travelling expenses incurred WHILST I AM WORKING...after that I pay for everything else out of the salary my employer pays me each month.
If I were to move closer to my place of work my boss may help me do that and even pay some sort of moving allowance, but what I furnish my new home with or any other expense I may have would be paid for from the salary I am paid each month.
If I pay a mortgage I would pay it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
When I have a holiday I pay for it from the salary my employer pays me each month.
I do not claim it back as some kind of twinning opportunity or fact finding mission.
In fact none of my non-work-related expenses get refunded buy my employer. Why? I go to work to earn the money to pay for them that's why.
Fingers crossed I'm wrong and in a few years a the public will calm down a bit and a suitable system will be in place.
scenario8 said:
Good for you. And I doubt you'd find many politicians looking for their employer to treat them much differently then yours does to you. But the public must understand that the role of an MP does dictate they effectively have two work places, usually a long distance apart and in many circumstances a lot of overnight expenses are going to be incurred. Overnight expenses, of course, are only a small part of the "cost" of running a constituency MP. The difficulty is finding a suitable and "fair" means of defining what is reasonable practice and a reasonable expense for the employer to pay. There is understandably a great deal of disgust at some of the dodgy practices employed by many MPs but I fear that the public will continue to see any and all expense claims as unreasonable or outrageous, further alientating them from the political process.
Fingers crossed I'm wrong and in a few years a the public will calm down a bit and a suitable system will be in place.
The problem being that there are lots of politicians doing exactly what my employer wouldn't. They are milking the system because it isn't against the rules...rules they themselves set in place without consultation with their employers...the voting public. Not content with that they also want their salaries as well!Fingers crossed I'm wrong and in a few years a the public will calm down a bit and a suitable system will be in place.
I have no problem them receiving an allowance to run constituency offices and even employ staff. I do however take exception to paying for things their salaries should be used to pay for.
joe_90 said:
Nothing will happen to any of them, or maybe some token that us mere mortals would get locked away for.
I agree, the new Speaker Flipper Cashcow has already spunked up £45k of our money to put a couple of safety gates up for his sprogs and blagged £6k for a sofa. This is on top of him flipping properties so I can't see him going down can youoldsoak said:
scenario8 said:
Good for you. And I doubt you'd find many politicians looking for their employer to treat them much differently then yours does to you. But the public must understand that the role of an MP does dictate they effectively have two work places, usually a long distance apart and in many circumstances a lot of overnight expenses are going to be incurred. Overnight expenses, of course, are only a small part of the "cost" of running a constituency MP. The difficulty is finding a suitable and "fair" means of defining what is reasonable practice and a reasonable expense for the employer to pay. There is understandably a great deal of disgust at some of the dodgy practices employed by many MPs but I fear that the public will continue to see any and all expense claims as unreasonable or outrageous, further alientating them from the political process.
Fingers crossed I'm wrong and in a few years a the public will calm down a bit and a suitable system will be in place.
The problem being that there are lots of politicians doing exactly what my employer wouldn't. They are milking the system because it isn't against the rules...rules they themselves set in place without consultation with their employers...the voting public. Not content with that they also want their salaries as well!Fingers crossed I'm wrong and in a few years a the public will calm down a bit and a suitable system will be in place.
I have no problem them receiving an allowance to run constituency offices and even employ staff. I do however take exception to paying for things their salaries should be used to pay for.
I think the public have to take a deep breath and then think about what they want from the office of an MP and then take into account that that end is probably going to cost a lot of money. At the minute there is an awful lot of outrage and disgust but not a huge amount of constructive debate. For example I was recently at a meeting with my local MP (constituency within the M25). There were a few, very vocal MOP shouting abuse about how he should be ashamed and he was only in it for the money etc and should resign. The MP explained he has never claimed any mortgage or overnight expense relating to his house or work at Westminster other than (some) travel expenses. Now, this seemed to me beyond reasonable since you can bet that he would have had costs at his home relating to his job (telephone bills, etc and arguably heating/electric costs of his study) - but lets not bother going into that much detail. The poitnwas he hadn't claimed anything. Even after this was explained and accounted for these same MOP were shouting the same things and their opinion had changed not one drop.
Were I to live in Yorkshire again, however, I would think it entirely reasonable for my MP to pay for his Leeds house out of his own salary or other private means, but I would also think it entirely correct that me/the taxpayer/his employer would pay reasonable costs relating to the fact that he/she would be spending 4 days a week minimum in London. The trick is finding a way of regulating that cost/expense claim. Should my MP be allowed to buy a house out of his own means then claim the cost of the mortgage? only the interest of the mortgage? only the rentable value of the property? Only up to a specific figure? Should the MP be obliged to rent and claim the rent back up to a certain figure? Should the state supply a property? Should bills relating to this property be permitted within the expenses claim? Should the permitted bills relating to that property include any/some/none of council tax, electricity, gas, water, household insurance, food while staying there, food bills over an above what the food bills would have been in Leeds etc. Should the MP be allowed to keep the property once he has stopped being an MP. Should he then be allowed to keep any or all capital gains/be liable for any or all capital loss? Should the MP be permitted to sell the property whie remaining an MP? It's all a bit difficult once you get into the nitty gritty.
Please don't misunderstand me, though, some of the practices employed have been shameful, and I'm not just relating to those that will proably be found to be unlawful (the non-existant mortgages, for example). Personally I find the switching of primary and secondary residencies in order to maximise the claim on mortgage interest rates to be at least as repugnant, but there you go.
And don't forget the expenses scheme was allowed to grow because for a very long time now governments haven't had the balls to take on the subject of MPs remuneration. They falsely believed that if they kept headline MPs remunerations at relatively low levels, but allowed the hidden parts (ie expense claims) to grow the public wouldn't notice. Now it has blown up in their faces.
I hope an incoming administration with a fresh mandate will have the guts to actually put a better, more accountable but importantly a fair system in place and we can all move on. But, going back to an earlier point, I think the public also have a responsibilityto accept that there are costs relating to constituency MPs and the employer has a role in paying for some of them.
Bit of a ramble, apologies.
No problem...and yes, I don't think we are arguing against each other either.
As for MP's spending a lot of time away from home and where to live...there is a very large building where they may be housed without the need to go to the expense of buying houses.
There are over 1000 rooms in the Houses of Parliament. I'm sure that they could spend a few bob turning many of them into 'Halls of residence'...the expenditure would be justified in a few years when no more expense claims for second homes were forthcoming from MP's/ministers.
Rent could be levied to cover the expense of heating and lighting and general upkeep of the building.
Any other expenses should be met through MP's salaries UNLESS expended to enable them to discharge their duties.
That's my take on it anyway.
As for MP's spending a lot of time away from home and where to live...there is a very large building where they may be housed without the need to go to the expense of buying houses.
There are over 1000 rooms in the Houses of Parliament. I'm sure that they could spend a few bob turning many of them into 'Halls of residence'...the expenditure would be justified in a few years when no more expense claims for second homes were forthcoming from MP's/ministers.
Rent could be levied to cover the expense of heating and lighting and general upkeep of the building.
Any other expenses should be met through MP's salaries UNLESS expended to enable them to discharge their duties.
That's my take on it anyway.
To be honest I see no reason why MPs shouldn't be treated as "working away from home on business" when they are in London...and quite possibly when they are in their constituency, too, as many do not have homes in their own constituency!
The Revenue have a set of rules about what is allowable and what is not that every British business has to follow or face the consequences. So long as the MPs have the same rules applied to them as a regular British businessperson that should be OK.
No-one would expect, when travelling on business, to be treated worse than than they would be at home. This costs money...
And I can tell you - it will probably cost more than it does today and the public will be even more aggrieved.
"I don't eat in restaurants four nights a week." No. That's because you are at home and have a kitchen...etc
The Revenue have a set of rules about what is allowable and what is not that every British business has to follow or face the consequences. So long as the MPs have the same rules applied to them as a regular British businessperson that should be OK.
No-one would expect, when travelling on business, to be treated worse than than they would be at home. This costs money...
And I can tell you - it will probably cost more than it does today and the public will be even more aggrieved.
"I don't eat in restaurants four nights a week." No. That's because you are at home and have a kitchen...etc
Try getting that past the Daily Mail
"£900M REFURB OF MPS' GRACE AND FAVOUR PALACE"
And they ran out of room in the Palace years ago, hence the (fantastically expensive) Portcullis House next door. Not that it's a bad idea, though, just that it would take a lot of balls to justify the build/refurb/maintainence of a block or blocks capable of housing about 500 MPs. Especially when "our troops" are reportedly going without the right support. Might that money be better used in retrospective expenses on private homes/rentals. This is why the system is so contentious, I guess.
Can you imagined the glorified students halls atmospehere? All these alpha males, alpha females, journalists, interns, secreataries etc in the one place, with little or no sign of partners or wives? I'd buy shares in Viagra.
"£900M REFURB OF MPS' GRACE AND FAVOUR PALACE"
And they ran out of room in the Palace years ago, hence the (fantastically expensive) Portcullis House next door. Not that it's a bad idea, though, just that it would take a lot of balls to justify the build/refurb/maintainence of a block or blocks capable of housing about 500 MPs. Especially when "our troops" are reportedly going without the right support. Might that money be better used in retrospective expenses on private homes/rentals. This is why the system is so contentious, I guess.
Can you imagined the glorified students halls atmospehere? All these alpha males, alpha females, journalists, interns, secreataries etc in the one place, with little or no sign of partners or wives? I'd buy shares in Viagra.
I think a few less of them in general may help with overall costs more than tightening expenses claims in particular.
The whistleblower-intimediary summed it up well, 25% claimed nothing, 50% just went along and thought it was just a perk of the job that everyone did routinely and 25% were on the out and out fiddle.
I don't think there was mens rea in the majority of cases, but there are definitely some who should be metaphorically strung up. All that frantic redaction did nothing for their case and in a lot of cases made things even worse.
If it was an open and publicly scrutinised affair then the actual rules would matter little as no one would have dared try to claim a duck-house or somesuch nonsense, the Scottish Parliament use this open system (you can do it online) and it self regulates well.
The whistleblower-intimediary summed it up well, 25% claimed nothing, 50% just went along and thought it was just a perk of the job that everyone did routinely and 25% were on the out and out fiddle.
I don't think there was mens rea in the majority of cases, but there are definitely some who should be metaphorically strung up. All that frantic redaction did nothing for their case and in a lot of cases made things even worse.
If it was an open and publicly scrutinised affair then the actual rules would matter little as no one would have dared try to claim a duck-house or somesuch nonsense, the Scottish Parliament use this open system (you can do it online) and it self regulates well.
Edited by andy_s on Thursday 19th November 16:26
Another thing about these 'second homes'...they are paid for under the illusion of them being a necessary expense to enable the MP to conduct his business...yet these properties are bought in the name of the MP's.
Shouldn't they be property of the State?
Then, when these MP's get sacked or retire the 'second homes' can be sold to recoup the money spent buying them, or at very least, they could be rented out to whoever replaces the sacked/retired MP.
Shouldn't they be property of the State?
Then, when these MP's get sacked or retire the 'second homes' can be sold to recoup the money spent buying them, or at very least, they could be rented out to whoever replaces the sacked/retired MP.
oldsoak said:
Another thing about these 'second homes'...they are paid for under the illusion of them being a necessary expense to enable the MP to conduct his business...yet these properties are bought in the name of the MP's.
Shouldn't they be property of the State?
Then, when these MP's get sacked or retire the 'second homes' can be sold to recoup the money spent buying them, or at very least, they could be rented out to whoever replaces the sacked/retired MP.
That's what the Army/Services do; you have a 'grade' dependent on rank and function and accordingly are allocated rental accomodation. All rental fees, repairs and, ahem, 'expenses', are invoiced back to MoD/Civil Service. Why MPs don't do something similar, if only for their own protection, is beyond me.Shouldn't they be property of the State?
Then, when these MP's get sacked or retire the 'second homes' can be sold to recoup the money spent buying them, or at very least, they could be rented out to whoever replaces the sacked/retired MP.
GreigM said:
andy_s said:
the Scottish Parliament use this open system (you can do it online) and it self regulates well.
perhaps except for the tory msp who's in the news today for spending £26K on stamps last year..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8367995.stm
herewego said:
I keep wondering about the MPs who took out huge mortgages that they didn't need so that they could claim for £23,000 of repayments. That seems just as bent to me.
The scam the (already wealthy) Winterton husband and wife MP team pulled off was breathtaking. Once they'd exhausted expenses by paying off the mortgage on their London flat they then transferred ownership of it into a trust in their sons names - and then claimed for rent paid to the trust which they said was required by trust rules!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff