Categorised | Conservatives, General, Labour, Lib Dems |

MPs’ Expenses: New Audit body is just not enough!

If our members of parliament think that the British public can be bought off with the introduction of a new “independent” auditing body to oversee the ‘Fees Office’, then they are sadly mistaken. It is clear, that whatever the legality of the rules governing MP’s allowances and expenses, there has been a consistent and blatant attempt by many to exploit hard-earned taxpayers money. Some ‘Honourable’ Members have even admitted that there was a culture of MP’s being encouraged to fleece the system for as much as they can, others have confirmed that the allowances were considered a right, a method by which they could supplement what they considered to be unreasonably low salaries.

In other words, many of these honourable members have been nothing of the sort, instead they have been leeches on the public purse. Many MP’s have been contemptuous and dismissive of the very people that elected them into parliament. Another fudge will not restore the trust and confidence in our MP’s or, for that matter, the parliamentary system that allowed it to happen. We can never ever again automatically, consider MP’s honourable, honest or filled with integrity. And, the bottom line, is they have no-one else to blame other than themselves, because the vast majority of them have been filling their boots with our money.

I am angered by the members of parliament that arrogantly insist that they are underpaid. On what measure if you please? The vast majority of MP’s came from a background that consisted of politics, journalism, teaching or unions. Few, if any of them, had any business experience, that is of course, one of the principal reasons that their business initiatives always fail! MP’s are not measured on the same basis as ‘normal’ people, politics is full of cronyism, as a consequence, MP’s are promoted on loyalty, not merit. They keep their jobs even when they fail and they retain their salaries even if they have done something you and I would have been dismissed for. They have other perks that the ordinary man or woman in the street could only dream of and I am NOT including their lavish expenses, allowances and pensions. The vast majority of these snivelling, egotistical leeches would not have survived in the real world, which is probably why they tried politics in the first place. If they think they are worth more, then go, good riddance, we will not miss you, that is a firm promise.

Trust and confidence in our MP’s has been destroyed, not by us, but by them. Even the few that were not dipping into our pockets, stood idly by whilst the rest did…..they said and they did nothing. In my book, that makes them no better that the leeches that have helped themselves to our money. Since 1997, the overall tax intake increased cumulatively by £1.2trillion. The only people, it would appear, not to have felt the impact, were the lawmakers that introduced or supported these despicable and unjustifiable raids on our pay packets. The pimps that insisted that our money was theirs to take, squander and plunder. If they (our MP’s) think they will be easily of quickly forgiven, they truly are very sadly mistaken. The decent thing to do would be to resign and let a new batch of MP’s come in, ordinary folk, that have a track record of success or experience outside politics, who can offer real value and life experience. Only then will we have an opportunity to get rid of the stench of self-gratification and suspicion of a corrupt system.

The public is entitled to expect and demand a fully independent audit of MP’s expenses, but this must be completed by an audit firm that is not linked to the public sector in any way, in other words, they must not have previously had a contract with the public sector and must undertake not to accept one in the future. There must be no way that the independent auditors can be influenced by the people they will be auditing. Further, an eminent barrister must be appointed to provide a definitive interpretation of the rules contained in the ‘Green Book’. The auditors must then compare claims that have been paid against this interpretation and every single claim that does not fall within the terms must be immediately repaid by the MP’s concerned. No exceptions. This audit should cover, at the very least, the last 10 years. Furthermore, an assessment must be completed, whereby a panel of 3 judges determine whether, in their opinion,  any criminal offences have been committed by any MP, such as attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage, deception, fraud etc. Those that are considered to have a case to answer, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If anyone in the ‘Fees Office’ has been complicit in the criminal process, then they too must be prosecuted, they were paid to do a job and if they failed, then they must accept the price. We want no exceptions, no whitewash and no excuses. The decision of whether or not a prosecution can take place must be left to the judges, not the CPS.

In addition, HMRC must conduct their own independent investigation without fear or favour. It is clear, from the admissions of our own MP’s, that some have profited from the sale of second homes. It is not difficult to determine whether or not this can be classed as a capital gain. HMRC must look at the records held at the ‘Fees Office’ and use this to determine which property was classed by the minister as their primary residence, i.e. the property where no second home allowance was paid. Any property that was clearly not the primary residence must, therefore, be subject to capital gains tax. Where MP’s have played the game by transferring the allowances between several properties, the HMRC must make an assessment and then issue a tax demand. The same as they would for anyone else. Remember, it was Gordon Brown and this government that tightened the laws relating to unpaid taxes, whereas, for the most part, it is up to the ‘innocent’ tax payer to prove that they have not profited, rather than the revenue services to prove that they have. So let them become the ‘victims’ of their own laws. Anything less would be unacceptable and unjust.

A friend of mine recently discovered that his business had been incorrectly accounting for VAT to which the VAT office was not entitled. This had happened over a period of 6 years. When he entered his claim, he was told he could only go back for a maximum of 3 years and when they eventually reimbursed him, he was even “fined” 5% of the value of the reclaim, because the VAT office determined that he had gained through “enrichment”. That is correct, he made a legitimate mistake in favour of HMRC and as a consequence, has had his reclaim reduced by 5%! These are the rules brought in by Gordon Brown and his government, they must be judged by exactly the same rules. That is to say, if they have been enriched through their failure to declare the fact that a ‘capital gain’ was due on the sale of a property, then they must been fined, made to pay interest, as well as repaying the tax.

Much has been made by MP’s about the fact that they were encouraged to milk the system of allowances by ‘house elders’. That is no excuse and I will supply a personal example. In 1979, I was provided with a company car with my job and, on the first day, I went around to the local garage to fill it up with petrol. As I recall, I put about £4 worth of petrol in the car and was handed a receipt for twice the amount. I queried this and was told that it was “standard practice” for everyone that worked for the company. I insisted on being given a new receipt for the correct amount. I then raised this with my manager, who said that “we are so poorly paid, this is considered a perk of the job, everyone does it and even senior management accept the practice, don’t worry“. I refused to be corrupted, I knew this was dishonest and I can honestly say, that from that day to this, I have never fiddled, taken advantage of, or ‘worked’ my expenses or allowances. In other words, it is for the individual to determine whether or not they will succumb to or support a corrupt system, in my view, each and every MP was given the same choice I was and the vast majority chose to ‘work the system’. So much for honesty, judgement and integrity.

Now, it will not have passed anyone’s notice that MP’s, brave souls that they are, have openly blamed the officials at the ‘Fees Office’ stating that expenses were approved by them, so it was okay. They should be reminded, that the Fees Office rules clearly state that ‘Your signature effectively certifies that the amount claimed has been spent on the additional costs necessarily incurred’. Quite right! In the private sector, the primary responsibility for an expense claim falls to the person that is submitting the claim. The individual that authorises the claim is obliged to determine the voracity of the claim at face value, but they will not, in most cases, be able to (nor expected to) investigate each claim or receipt. Nonetheless, if a dishonest claim has been entered, it is the claimant that can and will be held responsible. Over the years I have had responsibility for authorising expenses, I have always been diligent and never knowingly signed off on a dishonest claim. However, I have, on more that one occasion, disciplined or dismissed people that have deliberately entered a dishonest claim, such as false petrol receipts, exaggerated mileage claims and/or false overnight claims. MP’s must abide by the very same rules as the private sector. I can confidently state, that the experience I have had in business, in relation to expenses, are commonplace, in other words, most employers will not accept any level of dishonesty from their employees because they know it is a slippery slope.

  • For all those MP’s that have claimed that their claims were within the rules, let me remind them what some of those rules are (extracts), then perhaps they would like to reflect.
  • Additional Costs Allowance claims must be “above reproach” and MPs “must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you or someone close to you is benefiting from public funds”
  • MP’s expenses and allowances can only be claimed “for the purpose of performing their parliamentary duties.”
  • “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.”

Here is something else MP’s are obliged to consider: MP’s are allowed to claim for maintenance, cleaning and “necessary repairs“, as well as furnishings and white goods. Therefore, among the questions MPs are urged to ask themselves before making claims is, “How comfortable do I feel with the knowledge that my claim will be available to the public under Freedom of Information.”

Former chairman of the committee for standards in public life, Sir Alistair Graham, said the expenses system had to be decided in the public and taxpayers’ interest, by an independent outside body. He said, “It is depressing to keep hearing [MPs] saying ‘well, it’s the system that was wrong and we are changing the system’. “The question you have to ask is who devised the system? MPs devised the system under their self-regulating arrangements and that’s what must change for the future.”

Lets hear from Harriet Harman; Asked about claims MPs have been claiming one property is their “second home” under the allowance, but not for the purposes of council tax or capital gains tax, she refused to give a “gut instinct judgement” on whether it was a breach of the rules. However, she said: “Normally it would be the same for council tax, for tax if there was a sale of the property… normally there would be a consistency on that.” – Lets have this point put to the test, we don’t need any MP’s ‘gut instincts’, if they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us, then we already know the answer, so it is time for HMRC to act…and NOW!

I will sum up by reproducing two statements attributed to Harriett Harman. The reader can draw their own conclusions from what she says, or rather, what her statements imply.

We do not have the level of corruption that remains in many other countries”. “We have recognised that the system needs sorting out”. “We need a new system“.

MPs believe in the cause of public service and that’s why they’re in public service and I believe our House of Commons is not scarred by corruption on the scale of other political systems.”

Game, set and match!

Footnote: I believe it is time that parliament was modernised to reflect the modern day. A good start would to remove the automatic address of ‘the honourable’ or the ‘right honourable’ when referring to MP’s. It is blatantly obvious to any bystander, that this title cannot be automatically conveyed on MP’s, but must be earned.

It is worthwhile checking out this article on MP’s Expense Claims!


Warning: file_get_contents(http://web.wikio.co.uk/getnote?u=fc8cac9bd620f42fcf2f7c752cd8570d&i=23.20.193.33&referer=fc8cac9bd620f42fcf2f7c752cd8570d): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found in /home/hughes/49MHP6KJ/htdocs/power/wp-content/plugins/wikiovote.php on line 40

16 Comments For This Post

  1. julie daniels Says:

    fantastic – bravo
    well said and i and i know many others totally agree with your article. i shall do my best to get this read by as many as i can.

  2. CJ Says:

    Rather than scrap the titles, why not just modify them? Just add “dis” in front of honourable.

    Oh and, personally, I think HMRC should be renamed the “Capone Gang”, or “Bonney and Clyde 2” – that’s one organisation I DO think should be scrapped and replaced by something that will obey the same “normal” everyday laws as us ordinary mortals have to live by. The people have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that murderers and rapists are guilty, or they will go free; perhaps in future we should just report such undesirables to HMRC where they will be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent to HMRC’s satisfaction, which is almost impossible!

  3. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ CJ: I think we should all get together and complain individually about MP’s to the HMRC and/pr the Police. There is an obligation on them all to investigate crime or tax avoidance. MP’s must not be allowed to get away with it and I, for one, will do my damndest to make sure that they are held to account.

  4. CJ Says:

    Isn’t there a striking similarity here with what has happened to the EU – the EU gravy train, that is?

    Additionally, once upon a time in the UK, if you wanted to “get on” in life, you aspired to be a banker, a lawyer, a doctor, a Member of Parliemant, a stockbroker, or even to rise in the ranks of the police. Those were all relatively well paid and, above all, respectable and respected professions. Not any more! Well paid? Yes! Respected? You cannot be serious!

  5. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ CJ: I had similar thoughts this morning. Of course the gravy train that is the EU still remains today, the chances of them looking at any reforms is pretty remote.

    It is also clear, as you state, that the so called ‘respected’ positions have all but gone. This is because power and money always end up corrupting the weak and inevitably, many of the recruits for these positions are weak. But, if the government think that the people of this country will be fobbed off with a new ‘audit committee’ to oversee MP’s expenses, then they have completely misread the situation. What we want is an independent committee with a remit to review past expenses as well as future expenses. Anything less would amount to an amnesty and that will never be acceptable to the British public in good times, much less during a recession.

    If parliament were a business, it would be shut down, because there is more bad than good. Sir Stuart Bell suggests that 90% of MP’s expenses will be perfectly in order. There is another man that is not living on the same planet as the rest of us.

  6. Sandman Says:

    There can be no public trust until there is a full investigation. I am sick and tired of hearing about how these so called pillars of society have demonstrated a willingness to screw as much as they can out of the system…the system they set up and managed. Hypocrits, every single one of them.

  7. Dave Says:

    I am incensed by the bare faced nerve of MP’s who say that claims were “within the rules.” What part of “wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties” don’t they understand?

  8. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Dave: Exactly! I cannot comprehend how any of them can claim not to have known that what they were doing was wrong. It would be interesting to have them all, individually, respond the questions from the electorate.

  9. Viv Smith Says:

    It feels as if the mps are all dishonest, can that really be the case? our government is in a bad state we need to know if there are any we can trust
    Surely we always felt they were honerable what can we do?

  10. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Viv Smith: I am also certain there are some honest MP’s out there, but the system that selects them in the first place and the cronyism, rather than meritocracy that rewards them is bound to be at risk of corrupting many. It is the selection procedure as well as parliament that needs root and branch reform before the public can regain their trust in the system and the MPs’. Sadly I doubt the ‘old boys club’ of the main parties will grasp this nettle. Therefore, we are obliged to encourage more people to run as independent MPs’ and then to support them through the ballot box. There is nothing wrong with someone standing as an independent Conservative candidate, or an independent Labour candidate etc. Interesting times!

  11. Damian Corr Says:

    The one important question which i haven’t seen a clear answer on yet (was asked on this weeks question time but was very quickly skirted past) is what we the poeple can do about these people ruining our country? and i mean now, today, not, maybe, next year when there might be a general election. I want heads to roll now and i want poeple like you, or the person next to you, people of this counrty, to run this country.

  12. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Damian Corr: I echo your complete frustration. The problem is the only way the people of this country can oust politician’s mid-term is through civil disobedience or revolution. We cannot give a vote of no confidence. What we need is electoral reform; this must include a widening of the net in terms of who is selected to represent a party. The current system positively discriminates against ‘real’ people in favour of unbridled cronyism. Electoral reform must also allow the people to petition a vote of no confidence, similarly, parliamentary terms must be for a fixed term, rather than decided by the incumbent party. Proportional representation, unlike our own ‘first past the post system’ will also ensure that every vote counts. For example, New Labour got elected with a very substantial majority, even though they received less that a third of the popular vote. This means that two thirds of the people voted against them, that is hardly a public mandate.

    I think there is currently an appetite for electoral reform, if the public can keep the pressure on politicians, we might just get it. If not, then we will forever be the servants and not the masters.

  13. Damian Corr Says:

    I totally agree, you already have my vote! One things for sure, you can count me in on civil disobedience or revolution, im 32, married, with 1 child, and im not looking to cause pain or misery, put myself in prison, hospital or worse and i wouldn’t want anything to happen that would then result in further burden to us the tax payers, but as you can imagine i also have a lot to lose but im willing to make a stand. I doubt all my fellow neighbours, will have the same conviction, but i don’t really know. One things for sure the political system in this country is rigged, fat cats are creaming it off the backs of our hard graft and i don’t want to pay them any more but the system doesn’t allow me to have a choice. This i bet is just the tip of the iceberg. Its sickening when you think how much better this country could be with the funds they are stealing. There have been calls for complete financial transparency of the government, just like a company would have to file at companies house year on year. How much is the total amount of tax (all tax) that they get in and where its all going, down to the last penny, this still hasn’t happened, they don’t want to do this, i wonder why!!!
    I fear we are already part of a sinister variation of Machiavelli and Jean Jacque Rousseau’s govermental system for which we are completely ensnared! We were born slaves!

  14. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Damian Corr: It is ironic that people start work, handover up to 55% of their income to a government that then spends it as they wish, with little or no accountability and we let it happen. We then can’t wait to get the weekend off, go on holiday for 2 weeks out of 52 and then retirement. You are right, we are slaves, I have no idea why so many people put up with it. At a time when the government is spying on everything we do, they fight tooth and nail to stop us knowing what they are ding in our name. I really do think there is a window of opportunity and an appetite for change. Civil disobedience, such as withholding taxes etc., only works if there are sufficient numbers. However, many politicians have started to recognise that the people can have a voice through blogging, more and more people are expressing opinions and even more are reading them and sharing their own thoughts. This could lead to a significant movement of like-minded people. I believe, that growing organisations such as LPUK and the TPA could end up fielding candidates and they, with could start to make a difference. The TPA for example are already shaming politicians and NO2ID is campaigning to return our civil liberties and right to privacy. Momentum in these areas could lead to a significant change in the political landscape. Personally I would like to see more ‘ordinary people’ stand for parliament as an independent, with a local agenda and published principals.

  15. Robert Berry Says:

    VERY WELL SAID. This article is extremely well written and sums up exactly how I feel on this subject. It is the clearest and most objective piece I’ve seen or heard since this whole shamefull episode began.

    I have no truck with bleating MP’s claiming it wasn’t their fault making claims. Those of them who have profited from the system in such a dishonest way must accept their guilt and stand down – AFTER repaying expenses deemed as wrongly awarded after investigation. If this means they lose their homes (first, second or both!) then so be it.

    I am particularly pleased to see you have identified the part played by people in the Fees Office. I have a very strong desire to see those who approved outrageous / unjustifiable expense claims being brought to book. I suspect the people who work in the Fees Office are civil servants, i.e. not covered by any kind of parliamentary privelege or excemption from prosecution. If so, the investigation you’ve suggested must take place and those found to be guilty of wrong-doing prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    I have worked in the private sector all of my working life, am now 52 and deputy MD of a large, family owned engineering company. Your comments regarding scrutiny of expenses claims is absolutely correct and reflects my own experiences over 35 years.

    So the really big question is; how can honest, hard working, outraged people make what is being suggested in this article come into being?

  16. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Robert Berry: Thank you for your comments. We are all often required, during the course of our everyday lives, to make moral judgments on what we do or say, most of us pass the test. Many MP’s clearly have not, but they must never be given an amnesty, they must, like the rest of us, be judged on their actions.

    In terms of the Fees Office, there is a private members bill going through at the moment that seeks to protect any civil servant, public employee or for that matter MP, from prosecution if they can demonstrate that they have exercised ‘reasonable discretion. I consider this to be outrageous and there is little or no publicity in relation to this Bill. However, if passed, it would amount to a “Get out of jail free card”. I have written about it before: http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/2009/04/mps-seek-immunity-prosecution/

    In terms of your final point I really don’t know. Yes, we have the ballot box, but the reality is, we need electoral reform if power is to be returned to the people. That is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. That said, there is some evidence that through Labour losing key seats, resignations and natural retirements, we may see one of the largest clear-outs of parlimament in hundreds of years, perhaps as many as 50% of the ‘old faces’ will go. Maybe, just maybe, that will help, but only if we are given a voice on which MP’s are selected to represent our preferred political party. Failing that, if the politicians don’t reform, I truly believe we will see some form of public disobedience or disorder. It has happened in the past and there is no reason why it will not happen in the future. The fact that Jacqui Smith has ordered 10,000 Tasers may imply that the government has not dismissed this scenario.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. British Parliament the Expenses Cheats Says:

    […] MP’s Expenses: New Audit body is just not enough! | Power to the … By Frustrated Voter MP’s Expenses: New Audit body is just not enough! Posted on 10 May 2009 by Frustrated Voter. If our members of parliament think that the British public can be bought off with the introduction of a new “independent” auditing body to … Power to the People! UK Politic’s… – http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/ […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here