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

MPs' Expenses

I make it nine Labour and about 24 others, not at all impressive.

I think all sides realise the game's up and they're not going to do anything effctive in the 10 or so weeks they've got left...
 
Timble2 said:
I make it nine Labour and about 24 others, not at all impressive.
Click to expand...

On second count, I find eight Labour MPs: four backbenchers, three front. Perhaps you've made the simple mistake of counting John Bercow as Labour? ;)

The part that adds to the sin is that this that this is defence questions: two British soldiers have died in the last week. There's also a rather major offensive in action at the moment. Is this of no interest?
 
I'll post this here for now. But maybe it'll transfer to the Election thread soon...

MPs want legal aid for expenses fight: Fury as court case expected to cost public £3m
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 31st March 2010

Three Labour MPs charged with claiming £60,000 in fraudulent expenses are to apply for legal aid to fund a lengthy court battle to get the case thrown out.
The politicians accused of fiddling their expenses are expected to claim state assistance for top barristers to fight the case, which could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In a grave embarrassment for Gordon Brown, they will use arcane laws to claim they are immune from prosecution in court hearings on the eve of a possible general election.

Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine will argue they are above the law in hearings which begin on May 4 - two days before the expected polling day.
The sight of three Labour MPs seeking to dodge their day in the dock could cost Labour thousands of votes.
Legal experts estimate the bill for legal aid could push the cost of the prosecution to £3million.
The country's top legal minds are being lined up to prosecute the three MPs and Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield, who are accused of dishonestly pocketing thousands of pounds.

But the MPs have hired two top silks, with another two QCs likely to be brought in on legal aid to fight the prosecution in a High Court hearing.
Under the 321-year-old Bill of Rights, the MPs claim the Commons rulebook on expenses is covered by Parliamentary privilege.
They say this means only the House of Commons can judge them and they cannot be tried in a court.

Yesterday a senior judge fixed a High Court hearing to consider the argument on Parliamentary privilege which will see the MPs in court on the day of the general election.
The issue will be determined by Mr Justice Saunders in a three- day hearing between May 4-6. Whatever the outcome of his ruling, legal experts predict the point of law will be taken to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court at enormous cost to the public purse.

They say the MPs' QCs will have to spend at least 150 hours in preparation for the case, charging £250 an hour, and up to £1,000 a day for court work.
If the prosecution is allowed to go ahead, there will be separate trials for each defendant at Southwark Crown Court.

etc...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0jkbxLAi2
 
Expenses MPs Devine, Chaytor and Morley get legal aid

Three former Labour MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses have won the right to have their legal fees paid for by the taxpayer.

An HM Courts Service spokesman confirmed David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine will receive legal aid.

Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield, who is also facing charges, has not made an application for legal aid, the court official added.

All four deny the allegations and say they will defend themselves "robustly".

Conservative leader David Cameron said granting legal aid to the MPs was a "complete outrage" and promised to review the system.

Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove said the news was a "slap in the face for every decent taxpayer in this country".

The HM Courts Service spokesman said an application for legal aid for the three men was granted on Friday.

Mr Justice Saunders will hear their case during a two-day hearing at Southwark Crown Court from 27 May.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said that officials applied the "interests of justice" test to determine whether the MPs should receive legal aid.

The test says that if a defendant is at risk of losing his or her liberty - that is, they could go to prison if convicted - then they are entitled to legal representation paid for by the state.

The "interests of justice" test began to be phased out in January and replaced by a means test for all Crown Court cases in England and Wales - but Southwark Crown Court is not yet part of the new scheme, so it did not apply to the MPs.

However, if the MPs are convicted the trial judge could order them to pay back all or some of the costs of the case.

The MPs - who have instructed barristers to argue their cases - have all been suspended by the Labour Party, while Lord Hanningfield has been suspended by the Conservatives.

All four are accused of theft by false accounting and if found guilty, face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

Police began investigating after details of all MPs' expenses claims were leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

The men's lawyers have said that they intended to argue that they should be dealt with by Parliament rather than the courts because their actions were protected by parliamentary privilege.

Privilege traditionally guarantees MPs and peers immunity from slander laws for statements in parliamentary debates and also relates to access to parliamentary buildings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 616261.stm
 
'king outrageous! Makes me even more likely to vote for the Cynical Tactical Voting Ploy by Unreconstructed Anarcho-Communist candidate than I was already.
 
Three former Labour MPs facing criminal charges over their expenses have won the right to have their legal fees paid for by the taxpayer.

An HM Courts Service spokesman confirmed David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine will receive legal aid.

Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield, who is also facing charges, has not made an application for legal aid, the court official added.

All four deny the allegations and say they will defend themselves "robustly".

Conservative leader David Cameron said granting legal aid to the MPs was a "complete outrage" and promised to review the system.

Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove said the news was a "slap in the face for every decent taxpayer in this country".
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is this a complete non-story?

People accused of serious crimes are (quite rightly in my opinion) entitled to legal aid. Legal bills for a major case can run into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds and could easily bankrupt even a reasonably affluent person.

If we are happy for accused rapists and murderers to have legal aid, why not accused fraudsters?
 
It's offensive not because they aren;t entitled to it, but because they've screwed the taxpayers and now anything we do with them will either let them off the hook or screw the taxpayers some more.

We can't win with this one :(
 
It's offensive not because they aren;t entitled to it, but because they've screwed the taxpayers and now anything we do with them will either let them off the hook or screw the taxpayers some more.
Click to expand...

People accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, even if they are MPs who have been allegedly expenses fiddling.

If you wish to argue that those accused of crimes should not be entitled to taxpayers' money towards their defence that's one thing. I don't agree with it, but it's a coherent argument to make.

What is ludicrous is to suggest that accused murderers, rapists and terrorists should receive legal aid but MPs, uniquely, should not.
 
I think they should repay it if they're found guilty. If you're innocent, you deserve financial help in proving it. If you're guilty, you should plead guilty. If you're guilty and you plead innocent, you're a liar who should repay the cost of your lies.
 
I was lead to believe that Legal Aid was for those on low wages involved in the prosecution or defence of a civil case.

So are we to believe that the MP's can't afford their own legal costs? Perhaps they can claim it on expenses.
 
People accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, even if they are MPs who have been allegedly expenses fiddling.

If you wish to argue that those accused of crimes should not be entitled to taxpayers' money towards their defence that's one thing. I don't agree with it, but it's a coherent argument to make.

What is ludicrous is to suggest that accused murderers, rapists and terrorists should receive legal aid but MPs, uniquely, should not.
Click to expand...

wtf i never said or suggested any of those things.

i agreed with you that they're entitled to it.

my point was simply that it's a pisser that whatever we do with them that isn;t nothing, we end up paying for one way or another.
 
Today's Matt cartoon:

Hubby is sat at the table with pen and paper. He explains to his missus:

"The Tories invited us to be part of the government, so I'm doing our expenses"

:twisted:
 
I was lead to believe that Legal Aid was for those on low wages involved in the prosecution or defence of a civil case.
Click to expand...

Yes, legal aid is available in such cases - although it is much more difficult to obtain than before. However, this is a criminal case and so the rules in relation to civil cases do not apply. My understanding is that legal aid is available to anyone who is facing prosecution for a crime if a guilty verdict would be likely to result in a prison sentence, and it is on this basis which the MPs are eligible. This seems entirely reasonable to me - although as I understand it there are currently plans to make it more difficult for defendants to obtain legal aid under these circumstances.

Those bleating that the MPs should pay for their own defence costs "because of their high salaries" are, I suspect, unaware of just how much it would cost to defend a high profile criminal case successfully. The bill would be likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

wtf i never said or suggested any of those things.

i agreed with you that they're entitled to it.

my point was simply that it's a pisser that whatever we do with them that isn;t nothing, we end up paying for one way or another.
Click to expand...

Sorry BRF - I wasn't trying to have a go at you, so apologies if it came over like that. I just hate the way that the media whips up public hysteria over non-stories such as this. Basic tenets of fairness and the law - such as the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and being entitled to legal representation - are forgotten in a frenzy of loathing for an unpopular defendant.

We all have an interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes can access proper legal advice and representation without having to bankrupt themselves in the process. This is of benefit to all of us and helps to safeguard our own liberty. If this means that MPs accused of mortgage fraud have their defence counsel paid for from legal aid, then so be it. I simply don't understand the outrage.
 
The Times to challenge reporting ban on landmark expenses hearing
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Media organisations are to challenge a reporting ban on a landmark hearing at which four politicians accused of fiddling their expenses will claim they cannot be brought to trial.

The hearing next month, at which the four will argue that they are protected by parliamentary privilege, will be subject to blanket reporting restrictions, The Times disclosed yesterday.

But The Times and other media organisations plan to challenge the restrictions, which would prevent reporting of the case, on public interest grounds.

Three former MPs and one peer will attempt to block criminal proceedings by invoking the protection for parliamentary proceedings enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689.

They will argue that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” because it is part of parliamentary proceedings and so protected from scrutiny by the courts.

The three former Labour MPs — Jim Devine, who was member for Livingston, David Chaytor, who was member for Bury North and Elliot Morley who represented Scunthorpe — and the Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield could face up to seven years in jail if found guilty.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Saunders, will have a discretion to lift the reporting restrictions which are standard for most pre-trial applications.

Pia Sarma, senior legal adviser at The Times, said: “It would be completely contradictory to the workings of open justice if the attempts by these ministers to avoid criminal prosecution are heard in private and away from the scrutiny of the public.”

But lawyers for the four are expected to resist any such move on the ground that the publicity generated by the hearing would prejudice any later criminal trial.

Any ruling by the judge on parliamentary privilege is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.

A criminal trial is therefore unlikely to take place before the end of the year.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 108948.ece
 
Ex Labour MPs and Tory peer lose expenses ruling
Page last updated at 12:11 GMT, Friday, 11 June 2010 13:11 UK

Three former Labour MPs and a Tory peer are set to stand trial over expenses fraud allegations after a judge ruled they could not claim parliamentary privilege to stop prosecution.

Mr Justice Saunders rejected arguments by Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield that only Parliament could hear their case.

There was no bar to a trial, he said.

The four, who all deny charges of false accounting over their expenses, are to appeal against the decision.

If found guilty of charges brought under the Theft Act, they face a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

In his ruling - delivered at Southwark Crown Court - Justice Saunders said there was no "logical, practical or moral justification" for them using parliamentary privilege to prevent prosecution, adding that there was no legal basis either.

"Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury," he stated.

Shortly after they were charged in February, it emerged that lawyers for the men were exploring whether to challenge the prosecution on the grounds it might be unlawful.

Their case revolved around the concept of parliamentary privilege - an ancient right protecting MPs from legal action arising from proceedings in Parliament - and seen principally as protecting freedom of speech.

The lawyers argued that this extended to rules on expenses agreed by MPs and that all claims made on this basis were covered by privilege - meaning that only Parliament could deal with alleged abuses and determine sanctions.

But in his ruling, Justice Saunders said the "conduct alleged against these defendants is not covered by parliamentary privilege and is triable in Crown Court".

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10293475.stm
 
MPs' expenses: David Chaytor pleads guilty to charges

Former Labour MP David Chaytor has pleaded guilty to three charges relating to his expenses claims.
Chaytor, 61, the former MP for Bury North, was charged with false accounting totalling just over £20,000.
He stood down as an MP at the general election after stories about his expenses emerged in the press.

He changed his plea ahead of a trial which was due to start on Monday. He was the first Parliamentarian due to face trial over his expenses.
He will be sentenced on 7 January at Southwark Crown Court. He faces a maximum seven years in jail but is likely to receive a more lenient sentence because of his guilty plea.

Three other former MPs and two members of the House of Lords are due to face separate trials over their expenses claims.

Chaytor had claimed £12,925 between 2005 and 2006 for renting a flat in Regency Street, near Westminster, which he owned the lease to - he produced a tenancy agreement falsely showing he was paying £1,175 a month rent.

He also falsely claimed £5,425 between 2007 and 2008 for renting a home in Castle Street, Bury, which was owned by his mother. He had produced a false tenancy agreement showing he was paying £775 a month.

The charge said that he was not paying his mother and would not have been allowed to claim for leasing a property from a family member.

A third charge related to falsely charging £1,950 for IT support services in May 2006 - money which was not paid to him. The charge said that he supplied two invoices from a man named Paul France for his professional services "when in fact the services had not been provided or charged for".

He had denied the charges but appeared at the Old Bailey on Friday to change his plea, having failed in a court bid to argue that expenses cases should be heard by Parliament, not the courts.
He was granted unconditional bail.
Chaytor was mobbed by photographers as he left the court with his legal team before getting into a taxi. He did not comment.

Speaking outside the Old Bailey, Simon Clements, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "David Chaytor has admitted his dishonesty and will now face the consequences of his actions.
"No-one, no matter what their position, should be allowed to take money they are not entitled to.
"By his actions David Chaytor has abused the trust placed in him by the public.
"I would remind everyone that today is about David Chaytor alone.
"Nothing that happened today should reflect on any defendant in any other case."

Chaytor, who was elected during Labour's 1997 landslide victory, had spent his 13 years in the Commons on the back benches.

He was suspended by the Labour Party and barred from standing for them again after stories about his expenses claims emerged when the Daily Telegraph published hundreds of claims made by MPs over several years.

At the time he apologised for what he called accounting errors and referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for investigation.
But after a lengthy police inquiry the Crown Prosecution Service announced in February he would face criminal charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11904007
 
An odd PS to one of the earlier stories here. I'm not sure this is a good idea...

Jacqui Smith explores the world of porn for 5 Live
Former home secretary – who charged two adult films watched by her husband to the taxpayer – to interview porn stars
Press Association
The Guardian, Saturday 29 January 2011

Former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who claimed on expenses for two adult films watched by her husband, is making a documentary about the porn industry.

The politician, who lost her Redditch seat in the 2010 election, will interview porn stars and film-makers for the Radio 5 Live show Porn Again.

She said: "As I know from my personal experience, porn fascinates us – media and public alike. But we actually know very little about what it's like to work in the industry and what porn is doing to our society, our children and our relationships. "In making this programme, I've been able to challenge my own views and attitudes and I want others to have the chance to join the debate too."

The hour-long documentary, which airs on 3 March, will also include contributions from other politicians and feminist thinkers. After the programme is broadcast Smith will appear on a special edition of the Tony Livesey Show, where she will take calls from listeners.

Smith quit as home secretary in 2009 after a newspaper revealed two pay-per-view adult films had been charged to the taxpayer. She later said it had been a mistake to submit the bill, which also included two other pay-per-view films. Her husband Richard Timney said that it was he who had ordered the films. Timney, was forced to apologise for the "embarrassment" he had caused his wife, while she promised to repay all the costs involved, including the £10 charge for the two films. Smith had submitted the adult films as part of a £67 television subscription package bill in June 2008, but apologised for the mistake as she had submitted a bill for her internet package.

She had not been at the family home in Redditch, Worcestershire, on the two nights when the films had been viewed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... orn-5-live
 
Didn't she say that the whole affair was a horribly embarrassing nightmare that she wanted to put behind her? (Words to that effect). I'm not really sure this'll help remove the work 'porn-expenses' from the parentheses following her name.

Edit: perhaps when the public have already judged you to be irredeemably venal, what remains of your dignity may as well be flogged for whatever is being offered (cf. The Hamiltons).
 
MPs' expenses: Rules relaxed for 'commuter belt' MPs
By Emma Griffiths, Political reporter, BBC News

More MPs will be able to claim extra expenses for children and accommodation under relaxed rules launched on Friday.
Changes to the scheme, introduced last year, follow MPs' complaints that it was too bureaucratic and "anti-family".

An extra 31 "commuter belt" MPs will be able to claim for hotels or rent, and those with children up to 18 will be able to claim extra for travel.

It could add "a few million" to the bill but expenses boss Sir Ian Kennedy said £18m had been saved already.
Sir Ian, chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), also said the new system had also come in £30m under its projected budget and had "put an end to the expenses scandal that shocked us so much in 2009".

But he said there had always been an intention to review the scheme.
"We didn't get everything right the first time," he said, and some changes were needed to "better support MPs in doing their job".
It was not in the public interest for "family life" to be disrupted or for people with young families to be put off from becoming MPs, he said.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926
 
I thought politicians ranted about parents having children to get benefits. Now, they're encouraged to do it themselves. Of course, they won't be single so it's different. :roll:
"We'll stop bankers cashing in!" - No, they don't.
"We'll become more strict about politician's expenses!" - No, they won't.

Why do voters fall for the lies they spout, especially just before elections?
 
What about total transparency for elected officials and their appointees? How much they're worth, as well as how much they earn, in and outside the job, how they got it, etc. That way we could see whether being a politician is just a rich person's hobby, or profitable sideline, for them, or not.
 
I have to say that I'm struggling to see why MPs should be able to claim for their spouse and children's travel. Similarly, while it's reasonable to pay for a night in a hotel if it's not possible to get home to (say) Milton Keynes or High Wycombe after a late Commons session, I don't accept that an occasional need to stay overnight requires a £20K annual payment towards a flat in London.
 
Is it just me, or does this sound like plain fraud? Certainly worthy of rather heavier sanctions than a one week suspension:

David Laws suspended for 'serious and substantial' breaches of expenses rules

Laws suspended from the house for seven days and forced to apologise to MPs after standards watchdog rules former minister deceived Commons for seven years

David Laws, once the rising star of the coalition government, is to face one of the toughest sanctions of the expenses scandal after a year-long inquiry ruled that he seriously and extensively broke the rules to claim rent which was paid to his partner.

Laws will be suspended from the house for seven days after the standards commissioner, John Lyon, ruled that over seven years he deceived the Commons authorities by submitting claims to pay a landlord with whom he was in a relationship and sharing a home.

The deception was "serious" and the sums involved "substantial". Laws has already paid back nearly £60,000 and will now also be forced to apologise to the Commons.

Lyon accepted what Laws has always claimed: that he broke the rules to protect his privacy and prevent people finding out that he was in a gay relationship, rather than to profit and that the way he claimed reduced the cost to the taxpayer.

But he also suggests that the amount claimed in rent as a "lodger" in the property may have been above market value while he also claimed for other costs, such as maintenance work, that was justified as a cohabitee but were in conflict with the rules if he was simply a lodger in the property. Inadvertently or not, his partner, the lobbyist James Lundie, "benefited" under the arrangements.

He said that he had "great sympathy" with the MP's predicament, that to be honest about his relationship would have forced him to be open about his sexuality describing it as a "conflict between his private interest in secrecy and public interest in him being open and honest in relation to his expenses claims".

But whatever the MP's motivation the deception was serious. He should have either been open with the Commons about the true nature of relationship, or not claimed expenses at all, the report says.

Lyon's report says: "I consider that Mr Laws's breaches of the rules in respect of his second home claims were serious. I have no evidence that Mr Laws made his claims with the intention of benefiting himself or his partner in conscious breach of the rules. But the sums of money involved were substantial. He made a series of breaches. Some of them continued over a number of years."

In the accompanying report by the Commons standards and privileges committee, MPs accepted Lyon's judgment and recommended the seven-day suspension. It is likely to dash any immediate hopes of a return to government for Laws though its understood it is very unlikely that he will resign his Yeovil seat. He will appear in the Commons this afternoon to make his apology.

Laws said in statement following the publication of the report: "I accept the conclusions of the inquiry and take full responsibility for the mistakes which I have made. I apologise to my constituents and to parliament. Each of us should be our own sternest critic, and I recognise that my attempts to keep my personal life private were in conflict with my duty as an MP to ensure that my claims were in every sense above reproach. I should have resolved this dilemma in the public interest and not in the interests of my privacy.

"However, from the moment these matters became public, I have made clear that my motivation was to protect my privacy, rather than to benefit from the system of parliamentary expenses, and I am pleased that the commissioner has upheld that view.

"I have also, from the very beginning, made clear that I believed that my secrecy about my private life led me to make lower overall claims than would otherwise be the case, and this has been confirmed by the parliamentary commissioner and by the committee. The taxpayer gained, rather than lost out, from my desire for secrecy, though I fully accept that this is not an adequate reason for breaking the rules.

"This last year has been a difficult one, and I am grateful to family, friends, constituents and colleagues for their support and understanding."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... l-expenses
 
I have some sympathy; cupidity seems not to have been the motive in this case, as in so many others. Nonetheless, the serious error of judgement was made. Like a good many more, he's got off lightly, and - that being the case - I should like to see him back in the government; he was clearly a talented minster. In an ideal world, they'd all be up before a court, but we are treading the ground of realpolitik here.
 
I have some sympathy; cupidity seems not to have been the motive in this case, as in so many others. Nonetheless, the serious error of judgement was made.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I don't entirely buy the argument that Laws claimed monies he was not entitled to because he didn't want people to find out he was gay: (a) I suspect most of those around him had a pretty good idea of his sexuality and (b) if he was really closeted to that extent then the obvious thing to do would be to avoid claiming anything at all so that the issue would never come up.

It's also notable that the dubious claims dated back to before the rules on not claiming rent due to one's partner came into force and concerned matters such as telephone bills and renovations to Lundie's property.

In my view this is one of the more serious cases of dodgy expenses and is a world away from people claiming for items which might be permitted under the rules but appear ridiculous to the outside world.

Most employers would have fired Laws for dodgy expense claims of this nature and many would have called in the police.

I think he has got off extraordinarily lightly and it does seem in stark contrast to the MPS jailed earlier this year.
 
Quake42 said:
...I think he has got off extraordinarily lightly and it does seem in stark contrast to the MPS jailed earlier this year.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - and I'm still slightly flabbergasted by the sanguine reaction to this by so many who were so outraged not terribly long ago, often over the actions of people who weren't actually even breaking the rules in the first place.
 
Quake42 said:
Is it just me, or does this sound like plain fraud? Certainly worthy of rather heavier sanctions than a one week suspension:
Click to expand...

It isn't even a slap on the wrist. His excuse for doing it is ludicrous, as is his 'punishment'.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Quake42 said:
...I think he has got off extraordinarily lightly and it does seem in stark contrast to the MPS jailed earlier this year.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - and I'm still slightly flabbergasted by the sanguine reaction to this by so many who were so outraged not terribly long ago, often over the actions of people who weren't actually even breaking the rules in the first place.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, in the wake of the expenses scandal I was fuming. I would have supported a wholesale purge of the house and a mass of by-elections to fill the seats. As it is, the near-blanket amnesty offered to all but the indefensibly guilty had proved - if further proof were necessary -that MPs are utterly incapable of honourably policing themselves. I'm now at a fall-back position where given that so many will go unpunished, we may as well consider public utility as a silver-lining (though it be no moral mitigation).
 
And your sympathy with Laws' political position doesn't influence that judgement at all? :?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top