MPs' Expenses

[rynner2]

MPs' expenses leaked over failure to equip troops on front line in Afghanistan and Iraq
Expenses claims made by MPs were leaked because of anger over the Government’s failure to equip the Armed Forces properly while politicians lavished taxpayers’ money on themselves, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Robert Winnett and Gordon Rayner
Published: 7:00AM BST 25 Sep 2009

A claim by Sir Peter Viggers for a duck house costing £1,645 came to symbolise the expenses scandal. But soldiers working in the stationery office were outraged at the treatment of their comrades in Afghanistan
Workers who processed the MPs’ claims included serving soldiers, who were moonlighting between tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to earn extra cash for body armour and other vital equipment.

The soldiers were furious when they saw what MPs, including the Prime Minister, were claiming for and their anger convinced one of their civilian colleagues that taxpayers had a right to know how their money was being spent.

Armour was so poor that troops couldn’t wear it The mole who leaked the data has told his story for the first time, in the hope that it will shame the Government into finally supplying the right equipment for the thousands of soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan.

His account appears in No Expenses Spared, a book which is published today and discloses the full story of what Gordon Brown described as “the biggest Parliamentary scandal for two centuries”.

Five months after The Daily Telegraph broke the story of MPs’ expenses, the mole angrily denounced politicians who “still don’t get it” and were still preoccupied with their own financial situation rather than the plight of troops.

“It’s not easy to watch footage on the television news of a coffin draped in a Union Jack and then come in to work the next day and see on your computer screen what MPs are taking for themselves,” he said.

“Hearing from the serving soldiers, about how they were having to work there to earn enough money to buy themselves decent equipment, while the MPs could find public money to buy themselves all sorts of extravagances, only added to the feeling that the public should know what was going on.

“That helped tip the balance in the decision over whether I should or should not leak the expenses data.”

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -Iraq.html

 

[rynner2]

This topic is back in the headlines again...

MPs' anger over expenses payback

Some MPs are planning to challenge requests they repay money following an independent review of expenses claims.

Auditor Sir Thomas Legg has reviewed second homes expenses claims since 2004 and applied new retrospective limits on allowances for gardening and cleaning.

Labour's Martin Salter, who does not claim for a second home, said some MPs were angry and may take legal action.

Tory leader David Cameron has said he will withdraw the whip from any of his MPs who refuse to pay when asked.

He told GMTV: "In the end, if people are asked to pay back money and if the authorities determine that money should be paid back and they don't pay it back, in my view, they can't stand as Conservative MPs."

Tory MP for Huntingdon Jonathan Djanogly said he would question a request for him to repay an amount he would only say was "less than £25,000" but said he would pay it if still requested to do so at the end of the review.

Meanwhile the Conservatives say 14 members of the shadow cabinet have been asked for repayment although three are querying what they say are inaccuracies.

Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke has been asked to repay the most - £4,733 mainly for gardening and cleaning - and will be "making representations" but has agreed to pay.

Others include shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who has been asked to repay £642 relating to a mortgage payment and chief whip Patrick McLoughlin who has been asked to repay £4,058.

Among the cabinet, Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has repaid £800 relating to gardening claims and Chancellor Alistair Darling has repaid £554 claimed for a chest of drawers.

Communities Secretary John Denham has paid back £1,500, Justice Secretary Jack Straw £600 and Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward £1,426.

Meanwhile, Schools Secretary Ed Balls has repaid £13.50 for a miscalculation on a mortgage interest payment.

Sir Thomas was asked by Downing Street to review all MPs' claims under the controversial second homes allowance over five years, after the expenses scandal broke in May.

But he has written to some MPs asking them to pay back the difference between what they claimed, approved at the time, and what he thinks they should have claimed.

He cannot force them to repay money and his final recommendations will go to the Commons Members Estimate Committee, which will decide what to do next.

Following a meeting of Labour MPs in the Commons, ministers said they expected many MPs to write to Sir Thomas and object to his decision to apply new limits - of £1,000 a year for gardening and £2,000 a year for cleaning.

Parliamentary Labour Party chairman Tony Lloyd was also asked to approach the chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee about a joint response to the review but Labour says a meeting will not take place.

The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said some Labour MPs were planning to challenge any requests for money while others were angry at the Parliamentary Fees Office which they say has lost some of the receipts.

Gordon Brown, who has repaid more than £12,000 - largely from cleaning and gardening claims - has urged others to do the same.

He said it was "the last stage" in the "old discredited system" adding: "I would advise any MP after they have made their representation to make the appropriate payments."

Asked if he too was ready to withdraw the whip from his MPs if they refused, he said: "If, of course, people are not prepared to co-operate, then we will have to consider that action."

Tory veteran Ann Widdecombe said she thought Sir Thomas's requests were legally questionable.


She told the BBC: "If any other employer said to his employees: 'These were the rules. You stuck fastidiously by them ... but we have now changed the rules so here's a bill', that employer would be up before a tribunal."

And Labour's Martin Salter, who does not claim for a second home himself, said there was "a lot of anxiety and anger" among MPs.

He told the BBC: "The vast majority of MPs - especially those facing the electorate - have no option but to pay it back, however monstrously unfair it may be in some cases. But I think there are some MPs who will feel very aggrieved at having the rules reinterpreted five years down the line, who may mount a legal challenge."

The Liberal Democrats say they will not be publishing details of Sir Thomas's requests to their MPs. Asked if he would force his MPs to pay up if they refused leader Nick Clegg said: "I just don't think that's going to happen." He said he expected all MPs to "co-operate fully".

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said it was "a bit rich" for MPs to complain about Sir Thomas's work.

He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "The Green Book spells out in big black capital letters that it was the MPs' responsibility to satisfy themselves that what they were claiming was reasonable as far as claims on the public purse were concerned."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8305327.stm

(More detail on link.)

 

[Quake42]

I have to say I'm with Ann Widdecombe on this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the previous expenses system, it's quite clearly against natural justice to impose rules retrospectively.

 

[Moooksta]

Good, no need to apologise for the slavery of peoples then.

Edit:
A quote from the BBC story on it.

The rules spell out in big black capital letters that it was the MPs' responsibility to satisfy themselves that what they were claiming was reasonable as far as claims on the public purse were concerned.

mooks out

 

[Yithian]

The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.

This is the second-homes' allowance.

I would, personally, force them to repay any claims that are not 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily' needed for staying away from home. Just because someone else gave you the money when you asked, it doesn't mean that asking for it was right. If I make a false benefit claim, or apply for a tax-break to which I'm not entitled, the fact that someone grants my request does not retrospectively change the propriety of my claim. If it was misrepresenting the truth, it is still misrepresenting the truth.

Contrary to popular belief, bank error in your favour does not equal £200; it equals theft, and there are legal mechanisms for reclaiming money that you were not entitled to.

In the MPs' situation, they are not now 'changing the rules'. They are (partially) enforcing the rules correctly, as they have been misapplied by the fees office and greedy MPs who were complicit in making illegitimate claims.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

There's a dangerous precedent being set here. It's one thing to go after an MP for doing something downright illegal, it's quite another to start putting a bureaucratic hand into their pockets, after the fact, when whatever they did was originally within the rules, however narrowly.

Members of Parliament are the Public's Representatives, not just Public Servants. Undermining their rights and privileges may also be ultimately undermining the Public's rights, too. Treating MPs like naughty schoolchildren is not necessarily the best way forward.

I'd be far more impressed if The Govt. PLC., chased after the bank bosses, chief executives and shareholders, who have profited from the financial collapse and subsequent recession and forced them to repay their millions in ill-gotten bonuses and dividends. But then, they appear to be the ones who are really running the show nowadays.

 

[Spookdaddy]

I have to say I'm with Ann Widdecombe on this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the previous expenses system, it's quite clearly against natural justice to impose rules retrospectively.

Good, no need to apologise for the slavery of peoples then.

I'm at a loss to see how the comparison works. You can accept and acknowledge that a great wrong was done, but what use is backdating actual legislation? What do you want to do, procesute the descendants, several generations removed, of slave-owners? All sounds a bit biblical.

Although they appear to be coming from different directions, I'd agree with both PM and Yith. The argument, in this case, seems incredibly simple to me (and I'm always suspicious when any simple argument becomes over-complicated by the media, politicians, whoever): if what was done was within the rules, then no wrong has been done; if the rules seem wrong, then they need changing; if any individual broke the rules, then prosecute them to within an inch of their sorry lives. I see absolutely no contradiction between any of those points.

There's a dangerous precedent being set here.

Too bloody right - and I'm having some fun imagining the artery-busting fury on some of the individuals who appear to enjoy wallowing in this story if they found themselves being kicked up the arse by some backdated legislation: 'Sorry mate but we've decided that the place you've been parking your car for the last few years was a double yellow all along, have this sackload of parking tickets'.

 

[Quake42]

In the MPs' situation, they are not now 'changing the rules'. They are (partially) enforcing the rules correctly, as they have been misapplied by the fees office and greedy MPs who were complicit in making illegitimate claims.

Well, not in all cases. For example, Thomas Legg has unilaterally decided what is appropriate to claim for certain things (such as gardening and cleaning) and is now asking MPs to pay back any excess over that figure. You may argue that a limit should be in place going forward - you may argue that MPs shouldn't be able to claim for cleaners and gardeners at all. What is unreasonable is to say "hey we've changed the rules, and we're going to apply them retrospectively.

For example, my previous employer used to allow staff graded manager and above to travel first class on trains. This was was changed a couple of years ago in a cost-cutting move. People grumbled but generally accepted it. However, by your argument it would be acceptable not only to change the policy, but demand that all those who travelled first class over the previous X years pay back the difference between first and standard class fares. Clearly ludicrous, unfair and a breach of natural justice.

 

[Yithian]

There's a dangerous precedent being set here. It's one thing to go after an MP for doing something downright illegal, it's quite another to start putting a bureaucratic hand into their pockets, after the fact, when whatever they did was originally within the rules, however narrowly.

&

Well, not in all cases. For example, Thomas Legg has unilaterally decided what is appropriate to claim for certain things (such as gardening and cleaning) and is now asking MPs to pay back any excess over that figure.

In response to both of your points I'll say simply that the 'Green Book' laid down the clear-concept that expenses would only be met if they were:

"Wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. "

Gardening and cleaning expenses do not meet this criterion and are, thus, un-claimable to any amount. Legg is still not enforcing the rules strictly. You don't need a tidy garden or a clean home to do your job. Also, if you're living with anyone else, the expense ceases to be exclusive to you. The rules were in place. They were breached, with the complicity of the fees office, by avaricious MPs.

 

[Yithian]

'Sorry mate but we've decided that the place you've been parking your car for the last few years was a double yellow all along, have this sackload of parking tickets'.

Take a look at my post above.

The comparison is actually: The line was yellow all along. Furthermore, you were issued with the information in writing, but because all your neighbours were parking there, and someone who looked official came along and told you the line wasn't actually there (despite the evidence of your eyes and the letter), you parked there. Because you had something to gain from following him, you decided to break the rules.

In fact, you're getting off pretty lightly as Legg is now saying you only have to pay a fraction of the fine, not the full whack.

 

[Quake42]

Gardening and cleaning expenses do not meet this criterion

The "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" included expenses incurred in running a second home. I agree that it's arguable whether that should include cleaning etc, but the interpretation of the rules then (and now, in fact) is that these costs are a legitimate expense. I assume this is set out clearly in the guidance MPs receive on these matters. Legg is however setting arbitrary limits and then imposing them retrosepctively.

I refer you to my first class travel example above. By your argument the expense was not wholly "necessary". The managers could have travelled standard class, or caught the bus, or hitchhiked. Should they have to pay back the cost of their fares?

 

[Yithian]

I assume this is set out clearly in the guidance MPs receive on these matters.

Apparently, it wasn't. (See below: parliament wrote the rules; they weren't handed them.)

Hence the fees office and party whips making up their own interpretations and pushing MPs to claim as much as the norm. This is where nonsense like the John Lewis List came from. You also had MPs copying each other and establishing precedents for what the fees office would and would not swallow.

The rules, to my mind, were quite clear. Those three words: "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" pretty much seal it and wrap it up tight. I can't think of too many cases where I couldn't have decided in five seconds whether a claim met these criteria. Nevertheless nearly everyone in parliament contrived and conspired to stretch and ultimately break them because they perceived their wages as too low for their status and, more importantly, the taxpayer/employer would never know.

This is full-blown corruption. They deserve to swing. Metaphorically speaking. The 'flipping' of house designations ("It was my primary residence last year, but it's my secondary one this year") is even more flagrant. Those parasites deserve piano wire.

 

[Yithian]

The "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" included expenses incurred in running a second home.

That's not correct. 'Running a second home' was the avaricious interpretation. The expenses were to be paid for the cost of staying away from their main home in performing their role as parliamentarians.

The costs of 'running a home' do not meet the criteria. You just need somewhere to stay and the basics that allow you to survive overnight and do your job. If you want luxury, you should pay for it yourself. That's clear from the tight wording.

Edit:

For example, my previous employer used to allow staff graded manager and above to travel first class on trains. This was was changed a couple of years ago in a cost-cutting move. People grumbled but generally accepted it. However, by your argument it would be acceptable not only to change the policy, but demand that all those who travelled first class over the previous X years pay back the difference between first and standard class fares. Clearly ludicrous, unfair and a breach of natural justice.

False comparison.

The comparison should be: your boss issues guidelines saying that only expenses that are strictly necessary for getting to work will be repaid. Managers then take into their heads that it is necessary to travel first-class; especially as they haven't had a pay-rise in years and others in comparable jobs are earning a lot more. Later, the boss finds out and, instead of cracking down on it, starts claiming himself on the grounds that everyone else is, and he doesn't personally foot the bill. The system lurches on and train fares become expensive lunches, vintage wines, and duck-houses. The situation becomes so corrupt that the payroll department start helping the management to sneak-in even more outrageous claims for moat-cleaning and the like knowing that they shareholders don't really follow the business close-enough to spot the problem.

However, after several years of poor performance, the shareholders (the taxpayer) finally take an interest in the finances and discover that although the boss has been telling them that all the expenses were strictly 'necessary', in reality the management has been milking the company because they don't feel their wages are adequate. Hence, when the shareholders threaten to wind-up the company or just sack the entire management for corruption, the boss sends in an enforcer to break some heads. He leans on the boss who forces the managers to face the music and pay back the money.

That's what's happened.

 

[Yithian]

I assume this is set out clearly in the guidance MPs receive on these matters.

Final point (sorry for writing so much):

The fees office did not have any authority in this whole situation. The took in the papers and issued money as required baulking only at the most heinous abuses. (And inventing the John Lewis List to help them). The problem was that - despite influential advice to the contrary - MPs rejected proposals for an externally checked and audited system. The zealously looked after themselves. The fees office were required to take the word of 'honourable' and 'right honourable' members who managed to break the rules they wrote and approved themselves.

It's frankly incredible.

The Devil's Kitchen has a sound point:

Would Gordon Brown really have spent £10,716.60 of his own money on cleaning? Would Nick Clegg really have spent £910 on roses if he were not claiming the money on expenses?

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/

 

[Spookdaddy]

In response to both of your points I'll say simply that the 'Green Book' laid down the clear-concept that expenses would only be met if they were:

"Wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. "

Before the expenses scandal reared its head when was the last advice to MPs actually published? The only version of the Green Book that I can find online - prior to the revised 2009 edition - is the 2006 edition, on page 15 of which, you'll find that, 3.13.1 Examples of expenditure allowable under additional costs allowance, includes, amongst other things - Mortgage costs for one additional home in either London or the constituency (and surely, implicit in the acknowledgement that a second home may be necessary to your job is the fact that you need to run it too - hence the utilities, furnishings, buildings insurance allowances), and cleaning.

I have no idea how often the Green Book is revised, and I can only find HTML versions for 2006 and 2009. If it is indeed the case that the 2006 issue was the last advice available then I think my point, and others, still stands. This is not about interpretation - it's about changing the rules and backdating those changes.

(If I'm wrong, and advice has been published between 2006 and the present crisis which contradicts the advice given in 2006 then, mea culpa, I'm a twat, and I'll hold my hands up to that fact. If not, do not certain points made in the last few posts fall on their arse a bit?)

 

[Moooksta]

This is not about interpretation - it's about changing the rules and backdating those changes.

I thought this was about the misappropriation of public funds; the whole issue seems to have changed into how unfairly the MP's are being treated.

mooks out

 

[Yithian]

Thanks, Spooky. I too was searching for 2006. That's the one.

I think this:

What Can I Claim?

Only those additional costs wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred to enable you to stay overnight
away from your only or main UK residence, either
in London or in the constituency. If you receive the
London Supplement you will not be eligible

Was what I was searching for. This seems directly contrary to the section you quote.

As does this:

3.1.1. Scope of allowance
The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses
Members of Parliament for expenses wholly,
exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying
overnight away from their main UK residence (referred
to below as their main home) for the purpose of
performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes
expenses that have been incurred for purely
personal or political purposes.

And:

3.10.1. Allowable expenditure
You should avoid purchases which could be seen
as extravagant or luxurious.

Also:

3.14.1. The following expenditure
is not allowable:
- Living costs for anyone other than yourself
[Yith: so, we're not paying for your spouse and children or their shares of any of your household bills.]

[...]

The capital cost of repairs which go beyond
making good dilapidations and enhance the
property [Yith: we had several of these - lots of home improvement, sorry, / 'necessary repairs']

[...]
Furnishings or fittings which are antique, luxury
or premium grade [Yith: we had bloody loads of these claims; i seem to recall bookcases...]

[...]
Entertainment or hospitality
[Yith: or gay porn - how is not claiming for 'entertainment' consistent with paying for TV Licenses - as the book expressly allows.]

The section you cite (which is dreadfully vague in places and sharply specific in others) is still talking about basic costs and not 'running a home': it discusses expenses incurred. Gordon Brown, as I said, spent £10,000+ on cleaning and Clegg managed £900 on roses!. This is not necessary expenditure. There were - alas - hundreds of such examples in the Telegraph's revelations.

The rules - even ones made by the MPs themselves through their committee and then voted on by the house - were broken.

The MPs were bent; the rules were broken.

 

[Yithian]

And, as a clincher:

3.3.1. Principles
You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA
claims are above reproach and that there can be no
grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money.
Members should bear in mind the need to obtain
value for money from accommodation, goods or
services funded from the allowances.

Did they all manage this one?

Sir Thomas Legg's statement:

The fundamental principles required MPs personally to ensure that their use of the ACA was: (a) necessary for the performance of their parliamentary duties; (b) not extravagant or luxurious; (c) in accordance with the Nolan principles of selflessness, accountability, honesty and leadership; (d) strictly in accordance with the rules governing the allowance; (e) above reproach; (f) took account of the need to obtain value for money; and (g) avoided any appearance of benefit, or a subsidy from public funds, or diversion of public money for the benefit of a political organisation. These principles together amount to a general requirement of propriety.

This was his review of the rules in force at the time.
See here:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/P ... ggnote.pdf

He further notes, as I posted above, that...

...there were gaps and tensions between the elements of the rules governing the allowance.

 

[Spookdaddy]

This is not about interpretation - it's about changing the rules and backdating those changes.

I thought this was about the misappropriation of public funds; the whole issue seems to have changed into how unfairly the MP's are being treated.

mooks out

Seems pretty obvious to me that the argument has split into two distinct strands - part of it is about deliberate dishonesty, part of it is about what MPs are told that they can legitimately claim and how recent changes in that advice should affect previous claims. It also seems obvious to me, out of context quotes aside, that it should be equally obvious which aspect of that argument is being discussed at the moment.

I don't particularly like politicians myself - but I'm not joining a lynch-mob.

spooks out

 

[Moooksta]

spooks out

Excellent. :
:lol:

Fair enough. B.O.T.

mooks out

 

[Spookdaddy]

...The section you cite (which is dreadfully vague in places and sharply specific in others) is still talking about basic costs and not 'running a home': it discusses expenses incurred...

Absolutely, and as you point out yourself, some of the advice is inconsistent. In such circumstances using any section of the document to state what the document actually means, as you have done, seems to my mind, somewhat flawed. Some statements seem absolutely clear when read in their own context, but read as a whole the document is not as clear cut - which means the thing is open to interpretation and as soon as anything is open to interpretation - yours, mine, theirs - it's open to exploitation.

Clegg's claim for roses is, in my interpretation, utterly ludicrous - however I am extremely uneasy about using the plainly wrong, and I'll admit there seems to be much in that category, to judge the whole, and I also think that the real problem lies in a system that allows such claims to be made in the first place. Outside the examples of gross dishonesty, generally speaking this is a crisis caused not because people lied, but because they told the truth.

And going back to the point I was actually trying to make when I dug up the 2006 Green Book - cleaning, for example, was clearly and specifically cited as an allowable expense so

...cleaning expenses do not meet this criterion and are, thus, un-claimable to any amount.

Yes they do...er, did. So they are...sorry...were.

...The comparison is actually: The line was yellow all along. Furthermore, you were issued with the information in writing, but because all your neighbours were parking there, and someone who looked official came along and told you the line wasn't actually there (despite the evidence of your eyes and the letter), you parked there. Because you had something to gain from following him, you decided to break the rules.

No...it's not.

 

[Yithian]

it's open to exploitation.

You say 'exploiting the rules', I say 'breaking the rules'.

Outside the examples of gross dishonesty, generally speaking this is a crisis caused not because people lied, but because they told the truth.

They told the truth to their own people. Do you think these claims would have been made if the were going to be seen by the electorate. This isn't a feather for honesty in their cap!

And going back to the point I was actually trying to make when I dug up the 2006 Green Book - cleaning, for example, was clearly and specifically cited as an allowable expense so

...cleaning expenses do not meet this criterion and are, thus, un-claimable to any amount.

Yes they do...er, did. So they are...sorry...were.

I still think they don't. True, they are - quite perversely - included in the examples for acceptable expenditure, but they don't meet the other guidelines.

...The comparison is actually: The line was yellow all along. Furthermore, you were issued with the information in writing, but because all your neighbours were parking there, and someone who looked official came along and told you the line wasn't actually there (despite the evidence of your eyes and the letter), you parked there. Because you had something to gain from following him, you decided to break the rules.

No...it's not.

The Green Book makes it very clear that the rules are to be taken in conjunction with two other sets of guidlines for financial probity and good behavious. I forget which - look above if in question. We shall have to agree to differ because I think that many of the claims certainly break the letter of the rules in some places, and the spirit of the rules absolutely. MPs are reminded, more than once, that they must be above reproach, a great number of MPs failed at least once, many multiple times.

Edit: As quoted, Legg has decided that the essence of the guidelines, when drawn together boils down to this:

The fundamental principles required MPs personally to ensure that their use of the ACA was: (a) necessary for the performance of their parliamentary duties; (b) not extravagant or luxurious; (c) in accordance with the Nolan principles of selflessness, accountability, honesty and leadership; (d) strictly in accordance with the rules governing the allowance; (e) above reproach; (f) took account of the need to obtain value for money; and (g) avoided any appearance of benefit, or a subsidy from public funds, or diversion of public money for the benefit of a political organisation. These principles together amount to a general requirement of propriety.

If they didn't manage a) to g), they broke the rules. If anything, i don't think he's been strict enough, but to say the MPs should get away with fraud because they drafted their own rules badly, and refused to let an outside body monitor and operate the system is perverse. Legg has to interpret badly drafted rules. I think he's done a good job, although I'd go further.

Allegory 2:

Here are Yith's laws:
1) Thou shalt not kill.
2) Thou shalt only kill green things.
3) Thou shalt not worship graven images.
4) Thou shalt only worship graven images if they're really pretty.

Personally, if I were a follower of Yith - and the points had been made very clear to me that punishment could be most harsh, and sticking to the rules was 100% down to my own judgement, I'd opt for not killing anything and not worshipping any graven images. I might even point out that the rules were confusing and contradictory; damn, I might even try to get them changed as that is wholly within my power. However, were I a British parliamentarian, I'd sit on my hands and kill and worship as I please knowing that Yith will never find out.

...except he did!

 

[Quake42]

OK Yithian - here's how policies - internal or external - generally work. I'm writing as someone works in a field which largely involves drafting and interpreting policy and guidance.

Usually there will be a statement or principle which sets out the essence of the policy. In this case, it was that expenditure should be "wholly, necessariy and exclusively..." etc etc. It would be very rare for a short statement such as this to be allowed to stand alone as a policy, because every time someone wants to do something - in this case claim expenses - it needs to be examined on a case by case basis. This is extremely time-consuming and unless one person is acting as arbiter in all cases (and sometimes even if they are), inconsistencies will abound. To come back to my business travel example - should a first class rail fare be approved? What about a standard class open ticket? A taxi fare? What about an overnight stay in a 4 star hotel, when a Travellodge might have been cheaper? A meal which involved an alcoholic drink?

It's a minefield and so a set of guidelines will be drawn up around the principle. Those guidelines will state what the principle means in practice and give examples of what is and isn't acceptable. To use the business travel example again, it will be made clear when first class fares and taxis are appropriate and who is able to claim them. It should make clear what standard of accomodation staff who need to stay away on business can expect and whether it is acceptable to claim for alcohol with a meal.

As long as the people to whom the policy applies follow the guidance they have been given, they would be considered to have complied with the policy. The guidance should be based around the overriding principle and it shouldn't be necessary for people to go back to first principles every time.

In the case of the MPs, the Green Book seems to have constituted their guidelines and as long as they followed them I really don't see why they should be punished retrospectively. As Spookdaddy and others have said, it's really quite simple:

- throw the book at those who have broken the rules
- take no action against those who have followed the rules
- change the rules where it is necessary to do so.

 

[Yithian]

I accept your (full) explanation of how such policies are created/upheld.

I'd hazard that there aren't many companies with shareholders in which those eligible for expenses form a committee to create the rules under which they will be repaid, and then vote on whether they are acceptable.

I (still) don't think the comparison between companies and parliament is particularly valid or helpful.

Nevertheless...

edit:

As long as the people to whom the policy applies follow the guidance they have been given, they would be considered to have complied with the policy. The guidance should be based around the overriding principle and it shouldn't be necessary for people to go back to first principles every time.

Okay. The problems, as I see them, are that: a) The guidance does not seem to be based around the over-riding principles stated, b) MPs weren't given the policy or guidance, they made it for themselves, c) There was a caveat that all claims must be made in the spirit of fairness and in accordance with other policies - this is always going to require interpretation and judgement; now that is what is happening. The rules also explained that guidance and advice was just that, and that the ultimate decision as to whether the claims were within the rules needed to be made by MPs themselves. Nobody has any authority to 'approve' anything.

 

[Stormkhan]

As far as I can see, the MP's are claiming that Legg is changing the rules retrospective of their (then) legitimate claims.

Seems to me he's just clarifying what "reasonable" means in the already existing rules. He has tried to be transparent in declaring what he thinks is "reasonable". They are saying what they claimed for is reasonable and no one should question it.

I like the idea that most "naughty" MP's see that if a system has a loophole, they should exploit it. Their argument is regularly "I've not broken the rules". Legally correct but morally wrong. Of course, politicans don't have to be moral. In fact, moral politicians tend not to do too well.

 

[rynner2]

I like the idea that most "naughty" MP's see that if a system has a loophole, they should exploit it. Their argument is regularly "I've not broken the rules". Legally correct but morally wrong.

This idea is humourously explored here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 02699.html

Matthew Norman: Thank you, Sir Thomas. Six of the best is just what they needed
The dunces who are our MPs still cannot grasp that they have been naughty

 

[stu neville]

...I (still) don't think the comparison between companies and parliament is particularly valid or helpful.

Perhaps one between Parliament and other bodies paid (or otherwise funded) from the public purse would be?

In the 70s, my father worked within the then-nationalised aircraft industry. As part of his duties he, with a dozen or so colleagues had to spend large amounts of time in Toulouse. All of this was covered by expenses - now, very near the French site was a motel, roughly equivalent to a Premier Inn, plus a couple of low-key restaurants and cafes. They could quite happily have stayed there - however, they were told that they would be staying at a 3-star hotel in Toulouse itself, on a B&B basis, as the rates it charged were closest to the guideline expense rates (ie excessive.) Likewise, they were automatically given the maximum board-allowance, which was very generous indeed, regardless of how much they'd actually spent on food.

One of their party - an accountant, perhaps naturally enough - queried the cost effectiveness of this largesse with the finance dept, and was told in no uncertain terms "Well, we don't have to shell out for it, do we?" : as far as they were concerned HM Treasury was a bottomless well, and to all intents and purposes it was. In fact, anyone who rocked the boat tended to be given a very hard time, every single claim disputed or queried at length until they learnt to keep shtum.

The bucket hit bedrock, however, when the industry was re-floated. Many had been supplementing their income quite spectacularly with expenses, and a month or two before privatisation a personal letter went out to all who could claim such expenses to the effect that that regime was gone. From that date on, all travel and accommodation arrangements would be pre-selected and directly paid for by the company on a cost-efficient basis, all meals had to be backed up by receipt and any amount over a certain threshold would not be honoured full-stop, if you wanted to drink of an evening that was fine but they wouldn't subsidise you for it - they instituted clear, plain and unequivocal rules, just like the real world, basically. Exceptions would be dealt with on a case by case basis at a high level. Everyone then knew where they stood, a few were arrogant enough to think it wouldn't last and carried on trying to push the envelope, but they didn't get far.

What they didn't try to do was go back and start poring over old claims - they just drew a line, of which everyone was aware, and anyone who crossed it was appropriately dealt with. I can't help thinking that perhaps this is what should have happened with Parliament.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...they just drew a line, of which everyone was aware, and anyone who crossed it was appropriately dealt with. I can't help thinking that perhaps this is what should have happened with Parliament.

That's kind of the argument I was heading towards myself.

Beyond the outright criminals and the innocent there is a wide no-mans land mined with vague and/or contradictory advice, precedent, loopholes and grey areas.

Deal with those who have acted in an inarguably criminal manner and then give the rest immediate notice to quit no-mans land before you bomb it into the stone-age.

Then draw a line under it.

 

[Yithian]

Something to mull over:

Charles Moore's perspective on Douglas Carswell's (very sensible) suggestions:

There's nothing swivel-eyed about rebuilding Britain's democracy
A maverick Tory has the right idea - putting voters back in charge of their MPs, argues Charles Moore

By Charles Moore
Published: 8:33PM BST 16 Oct 2009

Conventional politicians love referring to unconventional ones as "swivel-eyed". They mean anyone who breaks ranks or appears to take a stand on a point of principle. The adjective is particularly applied to any MP who takes a persistent interest in a single subject – Europe, say, or tax reform or the poverty trap. Such interest, after all, gets in the way of self-advancement.

Douglas Carswell, the Conservative Member for Harwich, is a classic example of the genre. Although his eyes do not, in fact, swivel, he does look slightly odd. He is tall and thin and gangly, with a very powerful jaw. He is uncomfortable and serious, rather like the sort of crank who stalks the streets carrying plastic bags bursting with documents which prove that UFOs are beaming radiation into the water supply. His weird idea is that voters should be able to make MPs genuinely answerable to them. For this reason, many of his colleagues regard him as a lunatic.

But these are strange times. In the expenses scandal, conventional politicians are made to look fools or knaves. Jacqui Smith, the former Home Secretary, is a purely conventional politician, of the Blair Babe variety. This week, she made a half-apology to the House of Commons for having designated what was clearly her second home (a lodging with her sister in south London) as her first – in unparliamentary English, she cheated. She is finished, although the conventions established by the conventional politicians will ensure her an undeservedly long political afterlife.

Mr Carswell, on the other hand, is just getting started. It was he, to much tut-tutting from his seniors, who put down the motion of no-confidence in Mr Speaker Martin this summer. He set something in train. Eventually, Mr Martin had to go.

This week, on the same day, by piquant chance, that one Baron Martin of Springburn was being elevated to the Lords, Mr Carswell rose in the Commons to introduce his Ten-Minute Rule Bill. He began by asking MPs to remember when they were first elected, the moment "…when we heard the returning officer read out our names". "Most Hon. Members felt in their bones," he went on, "that entering the House was one of the greatest and most exalted moments in their lives, yet today we find ourselves scorned". The loss of public respect is so great that "In a reversal of 300 years of democratic development, the very fact of being elected to public office is sometimes… regarded as a disqualification".

The Carswell solution is not to submit MPs to ever greater tortures at the hands of unelected people like Sir Thomas Legg, but to send them back to face the electors. He wants candidates to be chosen by open primaries of all constituents, rather than by party caucuses. MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing would be subject to "recall" (in effect, a by-election) by their constituents if a decent percentage of them petitioned for it. Under our current system, Mr Carswell points out, roughly 70 per cent of seats are safe for the party holding them, so the Member, once elected, can relax. Under the Carswell rules, there will be no such a thing as a safe seat.

If this is "swivel-eyed", it is preferable to the conventional blindness. Mr Carswell sees clearly a point which is missed both by most of those who excoriate our MPs and most of those struggling to defend them. Attempts to regulate MPs by an external authority will prove an utter disaster, because they set that authority above the people we ourselves choose to make our laws. It therefore replaces parliamentary democracy by the rule of minister, judge or bureaucrat.

Every recent scheme – state funding for political parties, control of "second jobs" for MPs, Gordon Brown's invention of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, even the establishment of a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords – is guilty of the same error. We entrench more and more "scrutiny", but what we are creating is a quango state.

On the other hand, no voter, at present, will listen to another word from MPs about their right to supply their own pay and rations, because they have collectively, blatantly abused that right. The only items that we, the public, are now prepared to permit under the Additional Costs Allowance are sackcloth and ashes. So something like what Mr Carswell wants is the only way forward.

I keep asking myself how all this has come about. How is it that a Parliamentary system which really was the envy of the world even only a generation ago is now the butt of its jokes? I think I have a possible explanation.

For a hundred years, the great issue which Parliament debated most often was the franchise. Who should be allowed to elect MPs? From the Great Reform Bill of 1832 until the final admission of all women as voters in 1928, this argument raged. It made MPs super-conscious of the people who put them into Parliament, since they kept on debating who those people should be. And it made the public feel that the right to vote really mattered.

With these battles won, people felt satisfied, for the time being. But after the Second World War, politicians began to take advantage. With their legitimacy uncontested, they made things more comfortable for themselves. MPs forgot that their House was esteemed because it genuinely made the laws for the people it represented, and so they transferred much of that right to Europe.

Having handed over their birthright, MPs then focused on their mess of pottage. Individual offices, more paid advisers, bigger pensions, shorter hours, second homes, free ginger-crinkle biscuits! It is not a coincidence that Tony Blair, the first prime minister in our history ever to show consistent contempt for the House of Commons, was also the first to make the hand-outs really gargantuan.

In the party conference season which has just finished, little bits of this subject came up. David Cameron, in particular, was specific about one or two tough things which he wanted to apply in the next Parliament, such as an end to the MPs' pension scandal. But the mood in all the leaderships was that they wanted to "move on". They are avoiding plans for real reform. They should be reverting to Prime Minister's Questions twice a week, relinquishing government control of parliamentary business, providing for referendums. But of course they do not want to strengthen Parliament against the executive which they themselves hope to lead.

All the parties are fighting the next election on the old assumption that whoever wins will have the necessary mandate to govern from the British people. It is true that a fresh Parliament will automatically be less shameful than this one. But will that be enough? Isn't public disillusionment more radical? Conventional politics has been failing for 40 years: time for something more swivel-eyed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... cracy.html?

I really do think this could shake things up, empower and re-invigorate the electorate, and keep MPs with one eye on their constituency and another on their own behaviour. The personal fiefdoms that have evolved as a concomitant of the first-past-the-post system are a wholly undesirable effect, but - to my view - the typical instability of governments and coalitions under various forms of Proportional Representation are enough to rule their adoption out. This measure could act as a good compromise: if you're sitting on a big majority you can still be recalled for a by-election (the bar should be set high, but not impossibly so) if you act reprehensibly. In this event, your party can decide whether you are still suited to fly their colours then and there. As it is, transparently corrupt MPs, even when deselected by their constituency parties and ejected from the party, are perfectly able to sit on - at the taxpayers' expense - until the next election comes along.

As a footnote: if this is step one, step two is fixed-term parliaments.

Opinions?

 

[Spookdaddy]

I really do think this could shake things up, empower and re-invigorate the electorate, and keep MPs with one eye on their constituency and another on their own behaviour...Opinions?

At first glance it doesn't look a bad idea.

The only thing that worries me with anything like this is that I wonder how hard it would be for sections of the opposition, media, whoever, to force a situation in which an MP spends most of his time fighting his corner rather than serving his constituency. I suppose you could argue that if an MP has done nothing wrong then it's not going to happen - but, come on, real world.

But, generally, I quite like the idea.