MPs' Expenses

[Yithian]

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.

I was also pondering those 'concerned citizens' groups (often a simple front for the opposition party) who wait for the first excuse, but, as I mentioned, should the bar be set reasonably high, this would be a surmountable problem.

 

[rynner2]

Doubts cast over expenses reforms

Proposed reforms of MPs' expenses are in doubt after the head of the body charged with rewriting the rules said he might not implement them all.

The Daily Telegraph said Prof Sir Ian Kennedy was unhappy with standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly's plans.

Sir Ian was quoted as saying he had "no obligation" to accept everything that Sir Christopher suggested.

A spokesman said the body Sir Ian leads is required to consult but would "take up the reins" after the Kelly report.

The plan to reform expenses set out by Sir Christopher - and embraced by the three main party leaders at Westminster - is not intended as the final word on the issue.

Sir Christopher's report has gone to the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - headed by academic lawyer Sir Ian - which is charged with drawing up the final expenses regime.

When he started his work on Wednesday, Sir Ian said the Kelly report provided a "clear set of recommendations for reform".

But the Telegraph said Sir Ian was unhappy with plans in the report to compel MPs to return profits from second homes and ban them from employing relatives.

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said that if the authority were seen to let Sir Christopher's ideas slip away, it would re-open the furious debate about expenses which many MPs hoped was finally drawing to close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8347945.stm

 

[rynner2]

Media praised for expenses scoop

The head of the Press Complaints Commission has praised the exposure of MPs' expenses claims, saying it showed the vital need to retain press freedom.

Baroness Buscombe said the media filled a "democratic deficit" and had a "right to feel proud" for exposing abuses of parliamentary allowances.

She said public mistrust in public institutions such as Parliament would be even greater without a free press.

Lady Buscombe said the coverage revealed "a dysfunctional democracy".

She said given the fact that "the House of Commons appears almost entirely to have forgotten what they are there for... it is vital that the press is free to investigate and probe and tell it like it is".

Lady Buscombe, who took over as PCC chairman in April this year, told media representatives at an annual lecture in Stansted, Essex: "You can rightly feel proud that, from unravelling the government's misleading spinning of intelligence in the Iraq War to exposing uncensored details of MPs' expenses, the British press has filled the democratic deficit in recent years."

She said she recognised that some fellow Parliamentarians would not welcome her words but said that MPs and peers had to "learn the right lesson" from the media coverage of their activities.

"If trust in politics is at a low ebb, it is because there has been too little freedom to shine a light on politicians' activities, not too much," she said.

"A lack of trust in our institutions seems to be contagious. Yet however sceptical the public may be about Parliament, the judiciary - even the media itself - think how much lower it would be without a free press."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8361675.stm

 

[rynner2]

MPs' expenses: fraud charges for six MPs and lords
Six MPs and peers are facing criminal charges of fraud following investigations by Scotland Yard into the abuse of the parliamentary expenses system, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Robert Winnett and Richard Edwards
Published: 8:00AM GMT 19 Nov 2009

Detectives will pass files imminently on the Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and peers Baroness Uddin, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Clarke of Hampstead to the Crown Prosecution Service, Westminster sources have said.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is expected to decide whether to prosecute the politicians as early as January, before a general election.

Mr Starmer will determine whether the politicians face court on counts of fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, or false accounting, for which the maximum penalty is seven years.

Police and criminal lawyers are confident that charges will be brought.

A team of detectives has been assessing and investigating cases for five months since the Telegraph’s Expenses Files investigation disclosed widespread abuse of parliamentary allowances.

They are now on the verge of finalising their files to send to prosecutors.

A Westminster source said: “We have heard that things are about to come to a head”. A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said that they had not yet received files, but it is understood that they are expected imminently.

Police have been liaising with Sir Thomas Legg, who is carrying out an audit of MPs’ expenses, and are believed to have taken witness statements from senior civil servants and members of the Fees Office who processed the suspected claims.

Witnesses, including constituency workers and banking officials, have also been interviewed as detectives build up a file of evidence.

Officers who specialise in financial investigations have carried out a low-profile inquiry, with no arrests. It is believed that MPs and peers have co-operated with requests for emails and bank statements.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... lords.html

 

[rynner2]

MPs braced for criminal charges over expenses
Sean O’Neill and Roland Watson

The first criminal charges to result from the expenses scandal are expected to be announced today by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Scotland Yard detectives have referred six files to the Crown Prosecution Service so far. They believe that the evidence in some of these cases is overwhelming and are confident that a number of parliamentarians will be charged with criminal offences.

The most serious allegations relate to expenses claims for mortgages that had already been fully paid and allegations of wrongful payment for overnight accommodation.

Three Labour MPs — Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and David Chaytor — have come under scrutiny in relation to mortgage payments. Three peers are also understood to have been investigated. The DPP Keir Starmer, QC, will personally announce his decision on whether to prosecute in any cases.

The news came as the scandal descended into fresh controversy, with the retired High Court judge chosen to rule on MPs’ appeals clashing with the auditor who went through their claims. Sir Paul Kennedy criticised Sir Thomas Legg for imposing retrospective demands on some expenses and arbitrary limits on others.

Such an approach was bound to have unfortunate consequences, he said. He saw little, if any, evidence of deliberate wrongdoing by MPs forced to repay thousands in gardening and cleaning bills. He added that it was damaging, unfair and wrong to taint some MPs for making claims that were only later deemed out of order.

Sir Paul’s findings were seized on as evidence that many MPs had been traduced by Sir Thomas. One senior MP said that 200 MPs would have escaped censure if Sir Thomas had taken the same approach in his original audit that Sir Paul took on appeals.

Sir Paul upheld appeals, fully or in part, from 44 of the 75 MPs who challenged Sir Thomas’s findings, letting them off a total of £180,000. He sympathised that he could not let them off because his hands were tied by his remit.

Those words of comfort did not diminish the force of another humiliating day for the Commons as the full financial reckoning of the expenses debacle was laid out for the first time.

Some 364 MPs were forced to repay a total of £1.12 million as Sir Thomas criticised a “deeply flawed” system overseen by clerks in the Commons Fees Office and the “culture of deference” exploited by MPs that allowed it to flourish. Some MPs were so anxious to put themselves above reproach that they repaid £172,000 more than they were asked for. The audit cost £1.16 million.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 015890.ece

 

[rynner2]

Three MPs and one peer to be charged over expenses

Three Labour MPs and one Tory peer will face criminal charges over their expenses, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer has said.

MPs Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield will face charges under the Theft Act.

In a joint statement the MPs said they refuted any charges and would "defend our position robustly".

Labour peer Lord Clarke will not be charged but a sixth case remains under investigation.

Police have investigated a handful of cases since expenses revelations were published last May.

In an announcement outside the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Starmer said files had been reviewed carefully by senior CPS lawyers aided by "an external and highly experienced criminal QC".

"In four cases, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned," he said.

"Accordingly, summonses in these cases have been obtained from the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and will now be served on the individuals in question."

Former minister Elliot Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, will be charged in relation to more than £16,000 of mortgage interest claims on a property in Winterton, Lincolnshire between 2004 to 2007.

The charges alleges he made claims "in excess of that to which he was entitled" and - for part of the period when "there was no longer a mortgage on that property".

David Chaytor, MP for Bury North, is accused of "dishonestly claiming" £1,950 for IT services and further sums of £12, 925 and £5,425 relating to rent on properties in London and Lancashire.

Livingstone MP Jim Devine is accused of "dishonestly claiming" money for cleaning services and for stationery using false invoices. Paul White - the Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield - is accused of "dishonestly" submitting claims "for expenses to which he knew he was not entitled" - including overnight stays in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8499590.stm

 

[Stormkhan]

When the expenses embarrassment first opened, such "oversights" as claiming expenses for mortgages already paid off were dismissed in the media as "administrative oversight".

I always wondered if any fraudulent thief could use this as an excuse, or it only covers your arse if you are a politician and unused to being questioned on the amount of swill you gobble from the trough.

I admit to being a political cynic and, regardless of the right of the case, PC Plod will be told to "investigate" potential fraud but "find" none.

"It's okay, Constable K. He's a perfectly respectable, upper-middle-classed, white middle-aged bloke so if he says he forgot he was so wealthy, he'd paid off his mortgage, then it would be wrong to question the amount of money he'd taken from "company" expenses to continue the payments. The amount of paperwork needed to claim his wedge, he had to take on extra staff - his wife, his daughter, his son-in-law, his 12-year old grandson ... and of course, they all needed a salary. On expenses."
"Oh, I'm sorry to disturb you, Minister. I had no idea your life was so hard. Here, have a tenner from me an' I'll forget the whole thing, shall I?"

 

[rynner2]

"Oh, I'm sorry to disturb you, Minister. I had no idea your life was so hard. Here, have a tenner from me an' I'll forget the whole thing, shall I?"

Ooh, you cynic, you!

 

[Yithian]

Without being to hyperbolic, this video of Jim Devine's explanation for how he came to be facing criminal charges for allegedly fiddling his expenses is - well, please watch for yourself - but I warn you it's an utter car-crash of an interview. By the end, you're just waiting for the next disaster to hit him as he wanders obliviously from bear-trap to spiked-pit. Every time he tries to evade one accusation he runs squarely into a worse one like a cartoon 'rake-in-the-face' that everyone but the victim sees coming.

This is worth 5mins of your time.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/p ... ng/3527842

The interviewer clearly can't quite believe the replies he's hearing.
(It's the excellent Krishnan Guru-Murthy).

I'm afraid, without wishing to kick a man when he's down (even a possible criminal), but he seems to be a simpleton: truly not aware of how the situation and how absurd his explanation sounds. It's fairly damning of our system that he's an elected MP.

 

[Quake42]

When the expenses embarrassment first opened, such "oversights" as claiming expenses for mortgages already paid off were dismissed in the media as "administrative oversight".

I always wondered if any fraudulent thief could use this as an excuse, or it only covers your arse if you are a politician and unused to being questioned on the amount of swill you gobble from the trough.

I admit to being a political cynic and, regardless of the right of the case, PC Plod will be told to "investigate" potential fraud but "find" none.

"It's okay, Constable K. He's a perfectly respectable, upper-middle-classed, white middle-aged bloke so if he says he forgot he was so wealthy, he'd paid off his mortgage

I don't think anyone other than the individuals concerned "dismissed" the fraudulent mortgage claimns as "administrative oversights". The media certainly didn't - they were frothing at the mouth about every revelation, even astonishingly petty ones.

As the MPs have now been charged I don't understand your point that police have been told not to investigate. The investigation has been done and a decision has been taken to prosecute.

MPs do not earn salaries so vast that they could "forget" about a mortgage payment of hundreds of pounds each month, not just for one or two months but over a year. I'd be interested to see how they attempt to defend these cases.

 

[rynner2]

Public outrage feared over MPs' defence on expenses

The Conservative and Lib Dem leaders have urged MPs facing charges over expense claims not to use Parliamentary privilege to avoid court proceedings.

David Cameron said he was "disgusted" by the prospect and Nick Clegg said the public would be outraged.

Lawyers for Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine have all raised the issue of privilege, which usually protects MPs from civil action.

The three MPs all deny charges which they face under the Theft Act.

So does a fourth politician who faces charges - the Tory peer Lord Hanningfield.

The politicians face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. If found guilty they face a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

In a joint statement, the three Labour MPs, who have been barred from standing as Labour candidates in the general election, said: "We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.


"We maintain that this is an issue that should be resolved by the parliamentary commissioner who is there to enforce any breach of the rules."

Mr Cameron will say more on the issue in a speech on reforming the political system in London on Monday.

It is understood the MPs lawyers might claim their expenses are covered by Parliamentary privilege, which traditionally protects them from being sued for what they say in the Commons.

Announcing the decision to press charges on Friday, the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer addressed the issue of Parliamentary privilege.

"Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of Parliamentary privilege," he said.

"We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any Parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court."

Mr Clegg said the public would be "appalled" if the MPs invoked a right going back to 1689. "Lawmakers should not be above the law," he added.

Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, appealed to his three colleagues to ignore the lawyers' argument about Parliamentary privilege.

He said it was never intended to give politicians "impunity" from criminal charges and if used it would "deepen and prolong" the expenses scandal which had gripped Westminster.

"There may be a technical argument about this but it is one that will be treated with contempt by the majority of the people of the country," he told the BBC.

"Already they feel cynicism about politicians - saying there's one law for MPs and one law for the rest of us."

The Hansard Society, a leading political research and education charity, said any attempts to use parliamentary privilege in these circumstances would be a "deeply damaging" strategy.

Dr Ruth Fox, from the charity, said: "If it is a defence against almost any action that an MP takes in parliament, in any relationship with their work, then I think that is going to be deeply damaging for the public.

"They will see that it is putting MPs above the public, giving them enhanced powers, making them essentially above the laws that they themselves make."

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8502026.stm

 

[Cavynaut]

If you took a sample of, say 646 doctors, I wonder how many dishonest ones you would find. Y'know, those who the DPP could lay charges against. More than three? Less than three? Or journalists for that matter. Out of 646 journalists, how many would fiddle their expenses?

Just trying to put the witch hunt into some kind of perspective.

 

[rynner2]

If you took a sample of, say 646 doctors, I wonder how many dishonest ones you would find. Y'know, those who the DPP could lay charges against. More than three? Less than three? Or journalists for that matter. Out of 646 journalists, how many would fiddle their expenses?

Just trying to put the witch hunt into some kind of perspective.

No doubt you'd find a few.

But AFAIK doctors and journalists can't claim expenses on mortgages, or change their designated primary residence for financial advantage. MPs do seem to have been on a superior gravy-train to the rest of us, who might just have been able to fiddle a few bob on the firm's postage, or staff discounts, or the like.

 

[Cavynaut]

No doubt you'd find a few.

But AFAIK doctors and journalists can't claim expenses on mortgages, or change their designated primary residence for financial advantage. MPs do seem to have been on a superior gravy-train to the rest of us, who might just have been able to fiddle a few bob on the firm's postage, or staff discounts, or the like.

So dishonesty isn't an absolute then? It's just the actual cash amount that is the problem?

 

[Yithian]

If you took a sample of, say 646 doctors, I wonder how many dishonest ones you would find. Y'know, those who the DPP could lay charges against.

We've found a range from oversights to corruption in over 50%. The three are merely the ones who have not managed to have their wrongdoings dealt with 'internally'. I don't think doctors would be running at 50%.

 

[Cavynaut]

We've found a range from oversights to corruption in over 50%. The three are merely the ones who have not managed to have their wrongdoings dealt with 'internally'. I don't think doctors would be running at 50%.

Why? Surely "oversight to corruption" is just as likely in the medical profession as it is in the political profession as it is in any other profession.

I'm just trying to counter the 'all MP's are corrupt' notion by pointing out that the percentage of whom the DPP feels it has a case against is quite small.

I just feel that the whole episode has been blown out of all proportion, allowing the already popular myth that all MP's are only in it for themselves to be given an almost empirical proof.

And I love the fact that the story first broke in the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper owned by those famous tax exiles the Barclay Brothers. Pot? Kettle?

 

[Yithian]

We've found a range from oversights to corruption in over 50%. The three are merely the ones who have not managed to have their wrongdoings dealt with 'internally'. I don't think doctors would be running at 50%.

Why? Surely "oversight to corruption" is just as likely in the medical profession as it is in the political profession as it is in any other profession.

Actually, you've picked a good comparisson in 'doctors' vs 'MPs': they both hold a lot of power and responsibility. The difference, in terms of financial propriety, is due to the fact that, somewhere along the way, the corruption of MPs become accepted, institutionalised and normalised to the point - as illustrated by the happless Jim Devine - it wasn't seen for what it was. I'm sure it started with the opportunists and bad-apples, but it spread because it was free of consequences. In short: MPs (as a profession) have become more corrupt because their unique self-accountability and club-like oversight has permitted it. Doctors, in contrast, can't get away with it nearly as easily. I'm not saying all the MPs are morally dreadful (though some certainly are), but rather i'm saying that they have come to see the expenses and perks as money to be claimed; a free-fund on which to draw. In this light, they probably thought, pre-exposure, they'd be a fool not to take as much as they thought they were allowed. Take for example, the numerous anecdotes of whips encouraging individals to claim more and advising how to squeeze the most from the flawed system. I think, as a group, they stand accused by their own silence. Those who didn't overclaim have an unasailable moral highground; those who tried to blow the whistle on the whole scam were probably loathed by their peers (or seen as eccentrics).

Doctors couldn't get way with any of this. I'm not sure one group is morally better than another. It's just that one group had unprecedented opportunity to be corrupt with seeming impunity.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

390 MPs are accused of fiddling the equivalent of about £3500, each, on expenses. That's about the equivalent of an annual, rail season ticket, from Brighton to London.

Shameful.

 

[rynner2]

Another bunch of people living off our taxes:

Arts supremo Dame Liz Forgan takes £431 taxi ride home
Daniel Bates

A FORMER BBC boss who now chairs the Arts Council enjoyed a taxpayer-funded £431 taxi ride home from a night celebrating Shakespeare’s birthday.

Dame Liz Forgan was driven back from the performance at Stratford-upon-Avon to her London home at a cost of more than £4 a mile to the arts quango, which received £436m of government funding last year.

The cab ride is one of dozens of expense claims made at the council by Forgan and her predecessor, Sir Christopher Frayling, in 2008-9, a period when the council was slashing funding, or removing it altogether from more than 200 arts organisations.

Details of claims made public under the Freedom of Information Act show that Frayling also requested reimbursement of £500 for his own leaving present, a framed print by Tracey Emin, plus a further £115 for his farewell drinks.

He also claimed £460.72 to be driven to and from Glyndebourne opera house in East Sussex in August 2008. A first-class return from London to Lewes, the local station, is £41.50, less than a tenth of the cost of Frayling’s car journey.

During his final two years at the council, Frayling spent more than £12,000 on taxis, many of which ferried him to the Royal College of Arts, where he was rector until September last year. The Arts Council said that as its chairmen worked part-time, it was fair for them to be funded for transport to and from their other offices.

Frayling did not receive a fee or salary while at the council, but Forgan, former managing director of BBC radio, was paid £40,000 last year.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “These expenses are indefensible. At a time when public services are staring at cuts, people will find it hard to understand why they should pay for Arts Council bigwigs to live the high life.”

The council said of Forgan’s £431 ride: “She returned to her home in London by taxi because, at the time, performances at the Royal Shakespeare Company regularly finished after the last train to London had departed. She had four meetings while there.”

Peter Hewitt, the chief executive of the council who presided over its cuts, was awarded a £128,000 payoff when he left his post in 2008. This was in addition to his annual salary of £149,000 and £27,000 in pension contributions. At the time, the council said that money awarded to Hewitt was “separate” from the funding awarded to arts projects.

In the past few weeks, four regional directors of the council have received redundancy payments of between £150,000 and £225,000 in a restructuring of regional operations. The costs were split between the council and local authorities.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 017900.ece

 

[Yithian]

Shameful.

The conduct or the price of a season ticket?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Shameful.

The conduct or the price of a season ticket?

Quite.

 

[rynner2]

MPs aren't the only ones exploiting expenses - the Lords are at it too!

Nine peers were cleared of breaking expenses rules
Nine peers were cleared of breaking expenses rules last night after they were told that they needed to spend only one night a month at a “main home” outside London to claim £174 a night for living in the capital.
By Robert Winnett and Holly Watt
Published: 6:30AM GMT 10 Feb 2010

The decision by the Lords authorities cleared the way for peers to keep tens of thousands of pounds which they claimed from the taxpayer while designating holiday cottages and relatives’ homes as their main houses.

The neers peers , including two ministers, had been under investigation for making multiple claims for overnight stays in the capital.

Under the rules, peers could claim up to £174 for every night they spent away from their “main home” while attending Parliament.

In the House of Commons, a “main home” is defined as where an MP spends the majority of his or her time each year.

However, it had no formal definition under Lords’ rules. A committee of the Lords has now ruled that peers were free to designate a property at which they spent only one night a month as their “main home”. The main home could be owned and lived in by someone else. :shock:

The committee was chaired by Baroness Hayman, who was herself under formal investigation for allegedly abusing the system Its ruling led to her being cleared of wrongdoing along with Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Haworth, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker.

Baroness Hayman claimed that her main residence was a property in Norfolk where she was resident “about three weekends in four during term time”.

Over the past eight years, she received more than £200,000 in expenses for staying at her “second home”: a house near Hampstead Heath, north London, which she and her husband bought in 1975 and is worth about £1million.

The couple’s four children were brought up and went to school in the area. When she became a Labour peer, she took the title Baroness Hayman of Dartmouth Park, where her “second home” is.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, the Children’s Minister, received more than £140,000 in expenses by designating a holiday cottage in Wales as her main residence.

She was born in London and lived in the capital for the first 42 years of her life before becoming a peer in 2004.

A few months after entering the Lords, she bought a small cottage near Cardigan.

This property was designated as her “main residence”, which allowed her to claim the night subsistence for ministers living outside London.

This is worth £38,280 a year and is paid automatically by her department along with her £73,600 salary.

The system of Lords expenses is to change after the election to tighten up the definition of “main” and “second” homes. Peers will also have to provide receipts.

Yesterday, it was announced that Lord Clarke of Hampstead has been referred to a parliamentary committee which investigates the conduct of peers.

He will not face criminal charges.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rules.html

The days of the Robber Barons are not past!

 

[Yithian]

A committee of the Lords has now ruled that peers were free to designate a property at which they spent only one night a month as their “main home”. The main home could be owned and lived in by someone else.

A committee of their peers, literally. That's the problem, isn't it? The committee are being asked to make a judgement that will set a precedent for their own future behaviour. That, not to mention the fact that these are colleagues and even friends of those accused of wrongdoing. These things must go external to have any credibility whatsoever.

 

[rynner2]

Now here's the good news - er - and the bad news

Expenses body to cost six times more than MPs' payback

The Parliamentary body set up to police expenses will cost about six times the amount MPs have been ordered to repay, the BBC has learned.

Figures show the annual cost of running the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be £6.5m.

Last week, MPs were told to pay back £1.12m of their second home expenses after an audit of their claims dating back to 2004 by Sir Thomas Legg.

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8509815.stm

So as tax-payers we're still being screwed!

 

[Yithian]

In court the guilty may be obliged by the judge to pay costs. If it were my decision, the total cost of the investigation would be borne by those found guilty; the total owed being calculated in strict proportion with how much they were found to have over-claimed.

With regards to the new body, I'm happy for the cost to come from the public purse, but, it must be said, the BBC's X6 comparison is unhelpful, if not actually inaccurate. The new authority will (one presumes) oversee all of parliament: both MPs and peers. Whilst peers are MPs in a strict sense, they are seldom referred to as such.

 

[Stormkhan]

Regardless of the profession, the thing that hurts (psychologically) the ordinary person is that someone can claim expenses for outrageous amounts and no one seems to give a shit how much is being paid.

The idea that anyone can happily spend over £400 on a single taxi journey and fully expect it to be paid back to them is quite shocking. Yes, their attendance at an event might be part of their job. But it would've been cheaper (perhaps more reasonable) for them to pay ... oh, sorry - get paid to stay the night in a local hotel.

Another thing which might rankle is the folks who have come under fire for this are already highly paid. With their wages, they could fork out for a £400 taxi ride without noticing. But they get this expense paid back. Lower paid workers find it very difficult to get any recompense for "out of pocket" expenses. Let's face it, execs see "expenses" as part of the job advert.

So ... someone who can easily pay for, say, a £500 bottle of wine can get their money back. Those who couldn't afford this luxury won't. It isn't exactly the griping of envy. But it is the uncomfortable gripe of unfairness.

 

[Quake42]

Another thing which might rankle is the folks who have come under fire for this are already highly paid. With their wages, they could fork out for a £400 taxi ride without noticing.

I'm not sure who has claimed a £400 taxi ride - was it further back in the thread? I agree it's a huge amount but without knowing the details there may have been a reason for it. I doubt that there are many people who wouldn't "notice" a £400 bill either. Maybe Premier League footballers and Goldman Sachs directors. Not many other people.

I do think that the argument that "someone is highly paid so they should fork out for their own expenses" misses the point somewhat. If an employee incurs legitimate expenses as part of his/her employment, those expenses should be repaid. The employee's salary is irrelevant.

For example, I earn a reasonable salary and occasionally have to travel on business. When I do so, I expect hotel and travel costs to be reimbursed. Are you saying that this is unreasonable, and that because I earn more than average I should pay these myself?

If not, what exactly is your argument?

 

[Yithian]

This made me snort somewhat. It certainly doesn't help his case:

Ex-MP Caplin 'not contacted' over expenses repayment

A former Labour MP ordered to hand over almost £18,000 in mortgage expenses has claimed he was never contacted by the watchdog carrying out the inquiry.

[...]

Mr Caplin faced one of the larger requests for repayments but in Sir Thomas's report it said: "No reply has been received from Mr Caplin to a number of letters sent to the address held by House authorities.

Okay, perhaps he moved. Or could it be that he isn't living at the address he registered with the HoC?

 

[ramonmercado]

This made me snort somewhat. It certainly doesn't help his case:

Ex-MP Caplin 'not contacted' over expenses repayment

A former Labour MP ordered to hand over almost £18,000 in mortgage expenses has claimed he was never contacted by the watchdog carrying out the inquiry.

[...]

Mr Caplin faced one of the larger requests for repayments but in Sir Thomas's report it said: "No reply has been received from Mr Caplin to a number of letters sent to the address held by House authorities.

Okay, perhaps he moved. Or could it be that he isn't living at the address he registered with the HoC?

Or could it be more Fortean? Maybe hes dead inside his house.

Edit to fix comment inside of quote.

 

[Yithian]

It's not directly related to expenses, but if you want another reason for thinking that the current crop are a bunch of bastards, I give you:

First day back after a week's recess (holiday with possible constituency work), nation at war, 2:30pm, Defence Questions:

Government benches to the left, opposition to the right. I may remind everyone that the commons has 646 members including the speaker and his deputies: I count 4 Labour backbenchers plus the minister and his deputy, who have to be there. There are around 15 Tories and - according to another blog - a single Lib Dem. - Great turn out guys; supporting our boys...