• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

MPs' Expenses

rynner2 said:
McAvennie_ said:
Interesting thing: why, if elections are secret ballots, do I get literature from one party - who I voted for - addressed personally to me but I do not receive a single thing from any of the other parties in my mailbox?
It may in fact be a random mailshot to names on the electoral roll.

Or (like me) you may have been in touch with your local MP about something (even if you didn't vote for them), and got on their mailing list that way.

Ah yeh, come to think of it I have complained twice to my local MP. Once about police time and resources being used to block off a main road to allow a hunt party to cross and the other questioning why dog owners face hefty fines for letting their animals excrete in public while horse owners can let their beasts deposit mountains of dung on roads and public footpaths willy nilly with no punishment.

The latter is the key issue for me in the next election.
 
Stormkhan said:
It seems to me I have to vote for the party which seems to be less harmful, really.

Problem is that voting for a 'Party' is what gets us deeper into this mire of a homogenised political world we find ourselves looking at right now.
Obviously there are no Statesmen anymore and the rest to my mind are just a bunch of frustrated Oxbridge-educated (middle) managers who want to have 'A stint at running UK PLC' on their CV before they take the Corporate Pound. Expenses aside, there isn't a slip of paper between them politically.

Voting for an individual is a different thing. You can watch them as they get swept up into the culture until they become part of the system too.

If I don't vote, I still have the right to moan. I didn't vote for the Civil Servants who nodded all this expenses stuff through. I don't vote for those on the Council who issue random crap upon us from the top of their heads (although THEY are honest as the day is long) :roll: etc.

Part of the duty of reponsible people who aspire to the ideal of the politician is to recognise the alternative and moderate their actions so we don't get a rise in the BNP for example and by example. Perhaps there's a certain generation who need a lesson in politics.
 
McAvennie_ said:
why dog owners face hefty fines for letting their animals excrete in public while horse owners can let their beasts deposit mountains of dung on roads and public footpaths willy nilly with no punishment.

Imagine the streets of Victorian London with both!. No wonder Sherlock Holmes was an expert in tracking the culprit by his footprints.
 
Although one of the most lucrative - if nasty - "street" jobs for urchins was as a streetsweeper. Not one to clean the gutter but one who'd scrub/sweep horsemuck from the path of crossing folk.
You might also earn a copper or two sweeping the steps of carriages from embarking/disembarking passengers.

Okay, in theory when it was dry but do the same job when it's raining or snowing ...
 
Alex Salmond refuses to repay £800 expenses claimed for food
Alex Salmond has offered various explanations for the claims
Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor

Alex Salmond is refusing to pay back any of the £800 he claimed for food when Westminster was in recess.

The Scottish First Minister, who is the SNP MP for Banff & Buchan as well as a member of the Scottish Parliament, said yesterday through his spokesman that he would make all the information about the claims available to the independent audit of MPs’ expenses.

The money paid to Mr Salmond relates to August and September 2005 when the House of Commons was in recess. The claims were the maximum that he could make for food under the Additional Costs Allowance.

Under the rules, the costs covered have to be incurred “wholly and exclusively” on Westminster business while MPs are away from their main home overnight. However, the Scottish Conservative Party says that there are 27 recorded occasions when Mr Salmond was in Scotland during the period, including when he was campaigning and when he was at the SNP’s annual conference in Aviemore.

Mr Salmond, who has accused Westminster of losing moral authority because of the expenses scandal, has offered various explanations for the claims. First he said that the costs of the meals were incurred during the Parliamentary session but only became due in the recess. Then he said in a radio interview that he had been “in London in these months”. Next, his spokesman said that he had “made it clear” that he had been in London for only part of the time, rasing the question of why he had claimed for the whole of the two months.

The spokesman repeated yesterday that Mr Salmond would give all the necessary information to the independent audit set up to examine MPs’ claims. “They will make a judgment if he has been involved in any wrongdoing. He believes his position is rock solid,” he said.

Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, said that MPs whose expenses claims had been questioned had so far done one of four things: offered an explanation; apologised; refunded the cash or resigned. “Mr Salmond has not even got to first base,” she said. :twisted:

“I am asking him to publish his diary for that period to ensure that any ambiguity and any threat to the integrity of the position of First Minister is removed.”

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 451925.ece
 
MP to sell duck house for charity

An MP who claimed £1,645 on expenses for a floating duck island is to sell it to raise money for charity.

Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers said he felt "humiliated" after his expense claims were published in the Daily Telegraph.

The £30,000 claim for gardening costs included the 5ft Stockholm duck house which acts as an island to protect ducks from being attacked by foxes.

The Gosport MP, who is standing down at the next election, said he had received requests to donate it to charity.

He told the Portsmouth News: "I've replied to the dozen or so people that have enquired that my wife and I are minded, in due course, to sell the thing for charity."

After Sir Peter's expenses claims were made public Conservative leader David Cameron had warned him he faced the removal of the party whip if he did not announce that he would stand down at the next election.

The 71-year-old was first elected to Parliament as MP for Gosport in February 1974.

Adam Partridge, auctioneer from TV's Flog It, Bargain Hunt and Cash in the Attic, said he believed the duck house could sell for much higher than its normal value of about £300.

He said: "This is the notorious duck house and could get thousands and thousands.

"I've not auctioned off anything like this before; it's really tricky to say how much it could go for, but it may be a lot."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8090869.stm
 
So he got us to pay for his dashed duck-house and - in a fit of faux-remorse - he's selling it for charity.

I'm not complaining about the charity getting the money (as long as he or his relations have no financial involvement with it) but there's no doubt he wouldn't be doing this publicity stunt if he hadn't been caught out.

Like all of the MP's say "I did nothing against the rules ... so here's the cheque in repayment."
 
Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers said he felt "humiliated" after his expense claims were published in the Daily Telegraph.

Until that point I guess he felt 'he was getting away with it'.
 
Layla said:
Until that point I guess he felt 'he was getting away with it'.

Either that or he sensed which way the wind was going to blow at the polls and went for the lucrative Duck vote.

If I was him I would have said it was an experimental acoustic chamber to test once and for all whether the quack echoes.
 
Still it rumbles on...

Minister quits over her expenses

Treasury minister Kitty Ussher has quit the government after further questions were raised about her expenses.

Ms Ussher took the step amid reports she flipped the designation of her second home shortly before selling it in 2007, avoiding capital gains tax.

Ms Ussher denied she did anything wrong and said she was stepping aside to prevent the government embarrassment.

The move comes on the eve of the publication of all MPs' expenses on the Parliament website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8106193.stm
 
So, she was in her new office for about a week...
If she has corpses under the patio, she would have been better not accepting the post.
 
Kitty Ussher,
What a Lussher!

Ever Plussher,
Slower Blussher,
Still a Pussher,
Keeps things Hussher.

Down the Flussher -
Career in Crussher,
Gone to Russher!*

(*Pathetic Licence. I don't think she has. But perhaps she should. :p )
 
Stormkhan said:
So he got us to pay for his dashed duck-house and - in a fit of faux-remorse - he's selling it for charity.

Did we pay for it? I've seen the claim reproduced in the papers and it had "not allowable" or somesuch written on it. Is it definite we paid or just the tabloids deliberately confusing us on that bit?
Mind you, to even try to claim makes him a tit.
 
Row over blacked out MP expenses

The decision to black out many of the details of MPs' expenses claims has been criticised by campaigners.

MPs' addresses and bank details are hidden in the claims and receipts published for the first time.

MPs voted to exempt their addresses from Freedom of Information on security grounds but campaigner Heather Brooke said it was to "avoid embarrassment".

Meanwhile, the amount of money repaid by MPs has risen to £478,616, the Commons authorities have confirmed.

More than 180 MPs, including nine Cabinet ministers, have repaid individual sums ranging from more than £40,000 to just £1.

Parliament has published all receipts in PDF files on its website, more than a month after the Daily Telegraph began publishing stories based on the full, uncensored claims which were leaked to it.

It is a year since the Commons was ordered to publish all details - including second homes addresses - by the High Court under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, after a long battle.

The fact that addresses are not included means it is impossible to see if an MP "flipped" their second homes designation and claimed for several different properties - a key part of the Telegraph's revelations.

Ms Brooke, who was one of three people who brought the FOI case against the Commons, said what had been published was a "substandard version" of the receipts.


She said the addresses were "the only way to police effectively whether there is a second home and whether the mortgage exists" and the security argument had been "totally discredited".

"I can see that avoiding embarrassment has been the key motivating factor of what's been deleted," she added.

Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, agreed it was a "very poor substitute".

He said partial postcodes could have been published, which would show if MPs were changing their designated second homes.

"The mood of the House of Commons was that they did not want any of this information to be published and, failing that, as little as possible," he said.

Labour's Sir Stuart Bell said addresses had to be private but conceded some of the omissions looked "pathetic".

And Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Vince Cable told the BBC: "Had it not been for the Daily Telegraph a lot of this stuff would not have come out."

He added: "It is compromised and therefore less effective than it should be."

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8107922.stm

Lots of links on page - how did your MP do? 8)
 
Now here's a surprise...

Police to investigate MP expenses

Scotland Yard has decided to launch an investigation into the alleged misuse of expenses by a small number of MPs and peers, the BBC has learned.

Police say officers from their economic and specialist crime command will conduct the investigation.

Labour's David Chaytor has confirmed he is one of the MPs under scrutiny, and the BBC understands his party colleague Elliot Morley will also be interviewed.

It follows a public outcry about the way some MPs used their allowances.

The decision to launch an investigation follows several weeks of preliminary inquiries by a team of police investigators, prosecutors and legal experts.

But two weeks ago Scotland Yard had said it was highly unlikely anyone would face prosecution.

Mr Chaytor said his solicitor had been contacted by the police. He said he would co-operate fully with the investigation once he was invited for an interview.

"I want to explain my case, explain what happened. I've acknowledged that there is an error here and I want to clear my name," he told the BBC.

In a statement, the Labour Party said: "It would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing police investigation; however we always expect all Labour Party representatives and members to cooperate fully with the police.

"The Labour Party has already taken tough action on expenses, including barring MPs found to have broken the rules from standing as Labour candidates at the next general election."

The Conservative Party has declined to comment.

The BBC has so far been unable to speak to the two Labour MPs and the Labour peer thought to be among those under investigation.

etc....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8110022.stm
 
'We hereby sentence you to a custodial sentence of not less than two years on Duck Island. May the rudimentary shelter you will find there give you the comfort and inclination to think upon your actions.

You moat dredging, drawbridge-waxing bastard.

In the case of Jacqui Smith, we find her not guilty, due to the mitigating circumstances of her husband/promoter being a dedicated husband to the extent his solace was found elsewhere, albeit at the taxpayer's expense, and was necessary to establish a sense of belonging to whatever cupboard, cellar or other establishment he found himself in regarded as 'home'.

In the case of Hazel Blears. She resembles a unique squirrel not previously found in a native habitat within the UK. Therefore, we recommend she be put under further surveillance to see what she hoards and gathers in the approach to hibernating for the coming spring, and before she turns Wolverine and savages all before her.'
 
jimv1 said:
In the case of Hazel Blears. She resembles a unique squirrel not previously found in a native habitat within the UK. Therefore, we recommend she be put under further surveillance to see what she hoards and gathers before hibernating for the coming spring.'
Unique squirrel...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8108297.stm :D
 
These same Plod were asked to look into the Cash For Questions scandal.
They found - after a large amount of money and time - no cause for criminal action.

I predict now that no-one is going to be done after this investigation ... and I ain't any kind of fortune-teller, anyhow!
 
Exactly. This is the second time this government has been 'investigated' by the rozzers and that's not even to mention all the enquiries concerning illegal wars and mysterious deaths of anti-war advisers.

Is it really any wonder that the country is in the state it is? What do we really have to be proud of at the moment?
 
One disk, six reporters: The story behind the expenses story
Holed-up in a top-secret bunker, a small team of 'Telegraph' journalists worked 13-hour shifts on revelations about murky claims that have left politics reeling.
Matthew Bell reports
Sunday, 21 June 2009

On a normal Wednesday while parliament is sitting, Robert Winnett can be found squeezed into the Commons press gallery watching Prime Minister's Questions. But on 29 April, The Daily Telegraph's deputy political editor was mysteriously absent.

The quiet, young, former personal finance reporter, known affectionately by colleagues as "rat boy" for his scoop-sniffing cunning, had locked himself in a back room at the Telegraph offices a mile down the road over Victoria Station. In a training room tucked off a dead-end corridor that would soon be nicknamed "the bunker," he and a carefully picked team of colleagues spent nine days secretly wading through a hard drive containing four million items of data that had been smuggled out of the Commons expenses office and sold to the Telegraph for a six-figure sum.

The enormity of the task in converting what one close to the operation describes as "the equivalent of plastic bags stuffed with loose receipts" into major news stories became fully apparent only when the Government finally published the expenses claims last week.

It was luck that Winnett took the call when John Wick, the ex-SAS officer handling the disk's sale, rang the Telegraph news desk. Wick had offered the disk to three other papers, but it was Winnett who, after being given the expenses claims of two MPs as a sample, immediately saw its potential and persuaded his editor, Will Lewis, to buy the whole disk. The Telegraph's lawyers have a reputation for caution, but Lewis and Winnett successfully argued that the public interest case was overwhelming.

Once the deal had been clinched, Winnett was given a small team of journalists to help him tackle the blizzard of information. These included Rosa Prince, a lobby correspondent; Christopher Hope, Whitehall editor; Holly Watt, a reporter who joined the paper two months earlier; Jon Swaine, a young reporter who completed the graduate training scheme last year; and Martin Beckford, the social affairs correspondent. Political correspondent James Kirkup was initially on jury service but joined on his return. Andrew Porter, political editor, was left to cover politics from the lobby alone.

Winnett, who joined the Telegraph from the Sunday Times in 2007, could not have been better suited to the task. "Rob is brilliant at getting stories out of very dull spreadsheets," says a colleague. "He can be bothered to trawl through data to find a top story. He is a superlative investigative journalist."

Locked in the bunker, Winnett devised a system for going through the data methodically. First he sliced it up and distributed it between the six journalists, giving himself the Cabinet, somebody else the shadow Cabinet, somebody else Tory grandees and so on. The real work – checking expense claim addresses against the Land Registry, began a couple of days later. This information led the Telegraph team to discover some MPs' habit of "flipping" properties, designating a second home on which expenses could legitimately be claimed then switching to another. Checking electoral rolls and Companies House also revealed that some MPs had been switching second home designations to avoid capital gains tax. A source close to the operation describes the scene as "like the ops room in The Wire. They would pin pictures of their targets on the wall then cross them out in red as they resigned." :twisted:

Staff not involved in the operation had no idea what their colleagues were up to. "We were all taken by surprise when the story broke," says one. The first clue came at 2:36pm on Thursday 7 May when Beckford tweeted "Daily Telegraph team (including me!) reveals secrets of MPs' expenses."

Sales of the Telegraph shot up, with 93,000 extra copies sold on the first Saturday. For two weeks, none of those involved took a day off. They started at 8am, worked until 9pm, then headed to the bar of the Thistle Hotel where they would watch the 10 o'clock news, the first 20 minutes of which would be dedicated to the next day's revelations. 8)

As the stories were published, the team grew to more than a dozen. "It was like a shadow paper," says a Telegraph staffer. Working full-time on the story in addition to Winnett and his team were: a picture researcher; a sub; a designer; head of news Chris Evans; news editor Matt Bailey; head lawyer Arthur Wynn Davies; deputy editor Tony Gallagher; and Ian Douglas, who loaded the stories on to the web.

Yesterday The Telegraph published the disk in full, closing one of the most exciting chapters in its history. Lewis has drawn much criticism for his editing style, but the operation's ruthless efficiency has forced critics to rethink. "It saddens me to say," says one old hand, "but we wouldn't have done it as well under the old regime."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 11261.html
 
A couple of quickies... ;)
David Miliband claimed £50 from the taxpayer for photos of himself line-dancing
By Simon Walters and Brendan Carlin
Last updated at 2:07 AM on 21st June 2009

Foreign Secretary David Miliband was dragged into the expenses row yesterday after it was disclosed that he claimed £50 for photographs of himself taking part in line-dancing.
Mr Miliband charged the bill for the snaps to taxpayers so that he could put a picture on his website to show voters how agile he is on the dancefloor.
Whitehall officials blacked out most of the details of his claim, but left his name visible - misspelt as ‘Milliband’.
.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ncing.html
Revealed: The married MP who claimed expenses for 'lessons in love'
By Sara Menzies
Last updated at 6:56 PM on 20th June 2009

For many Brits on a recession-tight budget, spending money to inject romance back into a relationship would seem, at best, reckless.
It is likely mounting bills and the threat of redundancy may have overtaken the need to learn about the inner-workings of the opposite sex.
So, the taxpayer will be interested to learn that while they probably didn't think they could afford to splash out on love, a certain Tory MP did.
In the latest MPs' expenses revelation, it has been revealed member for Bosworth, David Tredinnick, tried to claim back £125 for a course on 'intimate relationships'.

Offering lovelorn pupils the chance to learn how to 'honour the female and also the male essence and the importance of each being', the 59-year-old attempted to swerve paying for the four-hour seminar by submitting his receipt to the fees office.

An official from the House of Commons responded to this claim, explaining, 'costs relating to Intimate Relationships courses do not fall within the remit of this allowance'.
....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... veals.html
 
MPs' expenses jokes
MPs have put themselves in the firing line over their claims, ranging from the outrageous to the bizarre, and their attempts to cover them up.
Published: 9:00AM BST 22 Jun 2009

Here is a selection of jokes doing the rounds on email and the internet.


MPs are replacing the Speaker in the House of Commons.

No doubt they’ll be changing all the rest of their electrical equipment before the end of the financial year.


Why did the MP cross the road?

So he could claim a second homes allowance


An MP complained that his ducks didn’t really like the floating island bought for them. Once it was paid for they moved down the riverbank and spent thousands of pounds doing up their designated second nest site.


What’s the difference between Parliament and a catering service?

One books the cooks …


How did the MPs conceal their embarrassing claims?

They re-duck-ted them


Gordon Brown announced that no MP's will be able to claim furniture expenses from now on.

It was a cabinet decision


What's the difference between an MP and an acrobat?

An MP can make a lot more from flipping.


Why did the MP bang his head?

Because he'd blacked out all the lightbulbs he bought on expenses

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... jokes.html
 
'Mr and Mrs Expenses' face having house repossessed
Council claims house has been empty since last November
By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
Thursday, 25 June 2009

Alan and Ann Keen, the Labour MPs nicknamed "Mr and Mrs Expenses", face the repossession of the house they have designated as their main home with the Commons authorities because it appears to be unoccupied.

Although the couple's family home is only 10 miles and a 30-minute commute from Westminster, they claimed almost £39,000 between them from the taxpayer last year to run a flat in central London.

The threat of repossession will raise new question marks over the Keens' expenses claims because MPs are supposed to spend the majority of their time at the property they have told the authorities is their main home.

Yesterday, however, Hounslow Council said that the Keens' house in Brentford, west London, appeared to have been empty since last November. The building is understood to have fallen into disrepair, with windows boarded up and building materials filling the garden. The council said it had written to the couple asking them how they intended to bring the property back into use. It added: "As with all such cases, they now have one month to respond."

The council confirmed last night that it had the ultimate power to issue an empty dwelling management order, allowing it to repossess a property if it remained unoccupied and dilapidated. The house can then be used to accommodate other people.

Mrs Keen and her husband, the MP for neighbouring Feltham and Heston, bought their flat in Waterloo seven years ago and have each been claiming close to the maximum second-home allowance since then on the flat overlooking the Thames. The loophole that allows married MPs to both claim the maximum allowance for a property where they both live is being closed.

Their mortgage interest claims were reportedly against a loan of £520,000, although the property only cost £500,000 plus £20,000 for fixtures and fittings. Last year Mrs Keen claimed £18,338 in second-home allowance, including £13,636 for mortgage interest, while her husband claimed £19,855, including £13,831 for mortgage interest.

Their Waterloo apartment – now believed to be worth more than £600,000 – is in a complex with its own swimming pool, hot tub, gym and concierge service.

In a statement last night Mrs Keen said it was "categorically untrue" to claim the couple's Brentford home was empty. She said: "It is currently in the process of being substantially renovated. Our representatives are in the process of speaking to the London Borough of Hounslow with the details of our renovation work. As soon as this work is completed, we will be back living at home in Brentford, where we have lived for the past 22 years."

Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister, said: "It is deeply ironic that the Labour Government's powers to allow the state confiscation of private property will be utilised against absentee Labour Members of Parliament." 8)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18037.html
 
Editor defends expenses coverage

The editor of the Daily Telegraph has defended his coverage of MPs' expenses, saying suggestions it had irreparably damaged Parliament were "rubbish".

Will Lewis told the BBC his paper's reports about MPs' claims would make Parliament more "open" and allow a "new generation" of people to be elected.

The coverage led to several MPs resigning and prompted major reforms.

But former Tory leader Michael Howard said some of the paper's coverage had been "inaccurate and unfair".

Mr Lewis told the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson that the expenses scandal of the past two months - triggered by the paper's publication of the unedited details of MPs' expenses since 2004 - had had an "undeniably good" effect.

Speaking publicly for the first time since the saga began, he said suggestions his paper's actions had undermined Parliament and democracy were "complete rubbish".

"It is going to open up Parliament to a whole new generation of people who understand what it means to be an elected representative of British citizens," he told a special Radio 4 programme on the expenses affair, 'Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem'.

Parliament had "lost its moral authority" some time ago, he said, illustrated by the long fight by some MPs to block the publication of their expenses details.

"This is not my fault. I am the messenger who happened to be able to get this stuff and deliver it to people who should have been told this by MPs themselves."

Mr Lewis denied the coverage had been partisan, saying the paper had shone a light on the conduct of MPs from all parties with "the same vigour".

He said the extensive nature of the paper's disclosures was justified because of legitimate public interest in the story and the need to publish information quickly.

"I knew we did have to go, in effect, for shock and awe," he explained. ;)

"The principle we were establishing here was that I know this information was true and the readers must know this as quickly as possible because this has gone on for too long unnoticed."

He added: "Why did we do this? Because they did not want us to see it."

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123195.stm
 
That's like saying that reporters were responsible for the Death of Nixon's career. Well, yes. But they had to have something with which to work.

If the claims hadn't been made, then parliament could never have been 'undermined' by them.

This argument makes as much sense as saying that MPs were responsible for the disrepute not because they made the claim, but because they passed the Freedom of Information Act allowing the claims to be revealed. Which is, of course, nonsense.

To complain about the way they were revealed is also spurious. It's like a killer saying his murders were represented in a gory and sensationalist way. Well, yes, because the media and the public view murder as gory and sensational. Just as they view illegal expense-claims as sleazy and cheap. Hence the reporting.

Furthermore, if the stories were - at times - inaccurate, it was mainly because the papers were dealing with incomplete and unofficial records. The full story was hidden entirely from the public. In general, the public interest (which stems equally from the source of the money as from the reprehensible behaviour of elected officials) was served. Even if mistakes were made. If honest accounts and records had been released first, they picture would have been more accurate. As it was, MPs sought to give no picture but a blank screen.

This criticism is just a load of balls. Sorry Mike.
 
Foreign Secretary David Miliband was dragged into the expenses row yesterday after it was disclosed that he claimed £50 for photographs of himself taking part in line-dancing.

I looked at my MP John Battle's expenses and for some reason he'd claimed for £330 of religious books, mostly on catholisism.

He also spent quite a bit at B&Q and Ikea :?
 
theyithian said:
That's like saying that reporters were responsible for the Death of Nixon's career. Well, yes. But they had to have something with which to work.

I agree. The argument that the reporters have brought the system into disrepute is the open declaration of the (unspoken) agreement that "it's only illegal if you get caught!"
 
Clive Betts had farm estate when he fought for ‘hardship’ expenses
Dominic Kennedy and Rebecca O’Connor

The man behind the huge rise in MPs’ housing expenses used his allowance to help to pay for a country estate. When Clive Betts fought for a big increase in MPs’ entitlements on the ground of “hardship” he had recently bought a converted farm property with a croquet lawn, it has emerged.

An investigation by The Times shows:

• Mr Betts “flipped” his designated second home to Yorkshire before buying a rural retreat there. He then flipped back to London before taking out larger mortgages on his flat in a block in Westminster;

• he has twice taken out bigger mortgages against his flat, where he charges some of the interest to Commons expenses;

• he bills the £5,000-a-year service charge, including residents’ private swimming pool, sauna, gym and 24-hour porter, to the taxpayer.

Shortly after Tony Blair won his second landslide, Mr Betts called for a big increase in the MPs’ housing allowance. Robin Cook, who was Leader of the Commons, tried to persuade MPs in July 2001 to refer their allowances to an independent review body.

But Mr Betts told the House: “Delay could cause considerable problems for many honourable members.” He referred to the urgent plight of newly elected members struggling to find somewhere to rent in the capital.

He heavily defeated the Government with an amendment to increase housing allowances by 42 per cent. They leapt from a maximum of £13,322 a year to £19,469 a year. The current figure is £23,083.
:shock:

Mr Betts reassured MPs that the full sum would be paid only on the basis of need. However, he has claimed every penny he could for the past six years — except for once, when he underclaimed by £2. :roll:

In 1997 Mr Betts flipped his second home from Westminster to Sheffield when he became a Government Whip and was required by rules to have his main residence in London.

He took advantage of the change to upgrade his constituency home, selling a house in a former mining village for £88,000 and trading up to a secluded farm on the Derbyshire borders.

The property was advertised as “a small country estate with 4.7 acres which would particularly suit someone who may enjoy equestrian pursuits or wishes to keep a few farm animals”. There was a croquet lawn, tennis courts and ornamental pond.

Agnes “Jo” Simm, Mr Betts’s constituent, then aged 79, wanted £450,000 for the property. Mr Betts co-ordinated the sale in May 1999: two friends bought the cottages on the estate for £100,000 and he agreed to pay £250,000 for the remainder.

This conveniently meant that he avoided the effect of Mr Brown’s Budget for “a fairer society” which had just increased stamp duty by 0.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent on properties above £250,000 to help schools and hospitals. Stamp duty on properties up to £250,000 remained at 1 per cent.

Even with a mortgage, Mr Betts was unable to afford the price, so he underpaid Mrs Simm by £55,000 and gave her a second charge on the property. When he sold a coach house on the estate for £110,000, he repaid her.

Constituents say that the pond is overgrown and the croquet hoops have gone. Mr Betts said: “There is no tennis court.”

On his website he describes his current second home, for which he now claims expenses, as “a small, 1-bedroom flat, within walking distance of the Houses of Parliament”.

When, as a newly elected Sheffield Labour MP, he bought it for £132,000 in 1993, the fifth-floor flat was being marketed to property speculators in the Far East.

He redesignated it as his second home for expenses purposes in 2003, citing a change of Commons rules. At that time, he says, the mortgage, which he had been funding privately, stood at £190,000.

Mr Betts says that he borrowed £20,000 extra in 2005 because of problems at the flat, but a deal meant that he paid less interest and so reduced his claims. In 2007 he remortgaged, again for repairs and refurbishment.

The Land Registry says that mortgage was £235,000, indicating that he has borrowed £45,000 extra since flipping to the London flat.

etc, etc....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 695100.ece
 
Something's not right with this story. The Times seems to be throwing a lot of mud with very little substance. Let's take it apart one bit at a time:

In 1997 Mr Betts flipped his second home from Westminster to Sheffield when he became a Government Whip and was required by rules to have his main residence in London.

Not really "flipping" in any meaningful sense of the word, is it? He was required by the rules to have his main home in London. He was following the rules. Not exploiting the expenses system.

Agnes “Jo” Simm, Mr Betts’s constituent, then aged 79, wanted £450,000 for the property. Mr Betts co-ordinated the sale in May 1999: two friends bought the cottages on the estate for £100,000 and he agreed to pay £250,000 for the remainder.

This seems to be implying, rather nastily, that he somehow took advantage of an elderly constituent. I assume there is no actual evidence for this or the Times would have been explicit.

This conveniently meant that he avoided the effect of Mr Brown’s Budget for “a fairer society

What is convenient about it? He only bought part of the property. The rest was bought by third parties, who were not related to him, so there is no suggestion he was "keeping it in the family".

Constituents say that the pond is overgrown and the croquet hoops have gone. Mr Betts said: “There is no tennis court.”

So?

On his website he describes his current second home, for which he now claims expenses, as “a small, 1-bedroom flat, within walking distance of the Houses of Parliament”.

When, as a newly elected Sheffield Labour MP, he bought it for £132,000 in 1993, the fifth-floor flat was being marketed to property speculators in the Far East.

What is the point of this section? £132,000 was not a huge amount of money for a flat in Westminster, even in 2003. "Being marketed to property speculators in the Far East" presumably means that it once appeared in an estate agent's brochure in Hong Kong or Singapore. Again, so what? Why is the Times even mentioning this, other than to hint at some sort of unsavoury foreign connection?

As far as I can see there is nothing to this story except smear and innuendo. I know nothing of Mr Betts, but I don't think anyone should be subject to this sort of press coverage when there is, as far as I can see, no evidence of any wrongdoing.
 
Back
Top