May 2009 11

MPs' expenses scandal spreads and spreads11

The latest revelations in the ongoing MPs’ expenses scandal revealing the indiscretions of the Tory front bench prove once and for all that the problem is a cross-party one, clearly so embedded in the culture of the House of Commons that politicians on all sides have been taking advantage of taxpayers’ money. There was an interesting interview in the Sunday Times with an MP yesterday about how that claim culture creeps up on MPs:

“When you are elected you are invited to a series of briefings by the Commons fees office,” he explained, speaking anonymously last week for fear of being ostra-cised by his fellow MPs.

 

“They are all about the different expenses: travel, office costs and, of course, the second home allowance. It is all very matter-of-fact, but what it does is plant in you the idea that there is all this money out there.

 

“For example, I had no idea you could claim back the cost of food. It seemed odd at first claiming for your weekly Tesco’s bill, but then you get used to it. Then the danger starts when you come to rely on it.”

Quite – and the news today about various members of the Tory front bench who have been shaking the money tree demonstrates how shameless some MPs have become, and how inventive people can be in finding loopholes and pushing at the boundaries of the rules.

No-one in the real world could ever have thought it would be acceptable to claim hundreds of pounds for overhauling their ride-on lawnmower (Alan Duncan), to pay to have 25 lightbulbs replaced (David Willetts) or to buy a second home just yards from their first (Francis Maude). Three factors have contributed to make MPs feel that this kind of behaviour is acceptable:

·         Secrecy – if MPs knew that their constituents would find out about all of these claims, do we really think they would have gone ahead with them? Allowing these transactions to go on in secret encouraged and allowed the abuse of expenses to become acceptable in Westminster.

·         The Westminster Bubble – it has been notable throughout this whole sorry affair that MPs who were elected more recently have been far more keen on transparency and far more committed to reform than a lot of their longer serving colleagues. It seems that if you have a recent recollection of what the real world is like you realise that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable to the public, whereas if you have spent a long period of time mostly in the company of other MPs you forget how ordinary taxpayers live.

·         Greed – we have rightly been discussing the flaws in the rules, and the weakness of Parliamentary officials who should have been defending our money, but at the final reckoning we must remember that none of these claims would have been paid out if MPs had not put them in in the first place. We could have no rules at all and a Fees Office that solely consisted of a drunk man with a pen and a cheque book but if we had honest MPs then these scandalous claims would never have been submitted – the core of the problem lies in the minds of those MPs who think it’s acceptable to milk taxpayers for all we are worth. Just look at MPs like Philip Hollobone, who have resisted the temptation to abuse the system and minimise their claims.

Credit must go to David Cameron for apologising straight away, and to Gordon Brown for eventually catching up, but taxpayers and voters need to see the full details of every claim, including second home addresses, and then they can ask each individual MP why they claimed what they did. There is clearly a range of different circumstances at play, particularly when it comes to people flipping their second home designation, ranging from the perhaps explicable, such as Michael Gove’s explanation that he simply moved house, to the pathetic and outrageous, such as Margaret Moran’s attempts to defend what appears to be a transparent attempt to bill taxpayers for structural work she didn’t want to pay for herself. We need to see the full details of every claim so that every case can be properly explored.

Just as the attempt to keep everything secret failed, so will any attempts to mutter a generalised apology or blame “the rules”. In a democracy, this matter must be settled between the people and their Parliamentarians.

Related Posts

  • http://markreckons.blogspot.com/ Mark Reckons

    Interesting post Mark.
    I think all MPs should pay back everything that goes beyond the spirit of the rules and I have started the ‘Pay It Back’ campaign (http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/pay-it-back-campaign.html) to that effect today.

  • Ron Bayton

    They have not in many case’s followed the rules , many have committed criminal act and should be held to account for it . I want too see my money payed back and also police investigation for fraud. This would be considered Treason in Henry’s day and you know what happened to the crooks then !!

  • john

    Make them pay it back with interest, another case as do as I say not as I do, whilst us honest working people have to tighten our belts to make ends meet and go without just to survive these freeloading fat cats take all and give nothing back. We’ve been screwed by then “pinching” our pension pots yet making sure that their pension is well sorted. So much for them being public servants and serving us they only look after themselves and sod the rest. A case of I’m alright Jack, at least Dick Turpin wore a mask so we could see who was robbing us unlike this lot!!

  • Paul Shorten

    The honorable members that have betrayed the trust of the electorate should have the “guts”to resign. Their actions are shameful when many honest people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Democracy is in grave danger we if do not insist in honest and open government. Mark’s petition gives us all a voice.

  • takingthemichael

    Mark Reckons page isn’t available- I would like to sign a pay it all back petition- is there another available?

  • Brian Smith

    Little Hazel Blears is crowing on TV about paying back the Capital Gains tax she avoided on her second home sale. (Were you watching Polly?)
    What she hasn’t done, of course, is give back the balance which is profit arising from her illegal conversion of expenses refunds into a capital asset. A process which everyone – except our MPs – knows is illegal and expressly outside the House of Commons rules.
    Don’t hold your breath while Hazel (and all the other MPs who have done the same) decides whether to write another cheque or not.

  • Tom Berry

    WHY ARENT MPS EXPENSES IN LINE WITH HMRC EXISTING LEGISLATION?
    The government enforces very strict rules on what employees can claim in expenses in the course of normal work. Yet seems to have extremely lack rules in what they claim in expenses.
    There are very clear documents on what the government deems normal expenses.
    For example MPs can pay themselves 60pence per mile for motoring in their own car, yet the most a ‘normal’ person can claim is 40pence per mile. Why?
    There are very strict rules in place under HMRC tax legislation defining the expenses acceptable in performing your duty, these are the same for a hairdresser as a computer programmer as sales rep. There is no reason why MPs should be claiming anything different and they should be made to pay back anything over and above the expenses allowed under HMRC rules together with interest.
    I would like to know if they declared these expenses to the HMRC on their tax returns and if they were taxed on these like anyone else would have been.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p011570881954970b Joy

    People resent unfairness, but despise injustice.
    We have moved now from resenting MP’s to utterly despising them.
    Apologising for being unfair can succeed; apologising for injustice cannot.
    Injustice must be met with justice. Excuses hold no water, apologies do not mend what is broken.
    Let them all be suspended and reviewed who have not come through innocent. We cannot clean up by sweeping things into hardwood floor cracks and corners or under expensive rugs!

  • Alec Hall

    How can the PM express support for a Minister who has abused the system for their own financial gain?
    She has shown that she is quite immoral or at best incompetent. She shows absolutely no regret at what she has done and gives the impression that if she could get away with it she would do the same again. Handing back money doesn’t restore morality it just means she was ‘found out’.
    She, and other ‘rotten apples’, should be consigned to the back benches until the electorate can deal with her.
    Perhaps the PM doesn’t understand? Maybe he thinks he can get away with too little too late. I have voted Labour for nearly 60 years but I’ll never do so again unless the PM has some courage and does the honourable thing.

  • NK

    Lloyds Banking Group
    I would appreciate it if you could investigate the standard variable rates charged by companies within the Lloyds Banking Group. The Bank of Scotland variable rate is nearly double that charged by Lloyds Bank! The government owns a majority share in the Group and need to get their act together.
    Standard Variable Rates
    Lloyds 2.5%
    C & G 2.5%
    Halifax 3.5%
    Bank of Scotland 4.84%

  • Arthur Bown

    In the real world if you are caught repeatedly abusing an expenses scheme you are sacked.
    This should be the case for M.P.’s.
    They should be made to go now, and not be able to hang on, with full pay, until a general election is called.
    They should forfeit their golden good-byes and they should also only receive a pension made up of their own personal contributions. All contributions from the government (i.e. the taxpayer) should be withheld.
    This action, if carried out, would possibly act as a deterrent for future M.P.’s.
    I think that if a national petition on these lines was started jointly by the TPA and a daily newspaper it would be well received.