Kelly reforms are 'merely assumptions' and may be rejected
Plans to cut MPs expenses may be delayed by yet another review
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Key reforms designed to clean up the MPs' expenses system may now be thrown out. All three major party leaders have thrown their support behind the myriad of reforms recommended by Sir Christopher Kelly's inquiry this week, and Sir Christopher said his measures should be implemented in full by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).
But a source close to Ipsa said it was "merely his assumption that that would be the case". Instead, the authority is also planning another major review before implementing a new system. The Kelly inquiry would be no more than "one of the bases for the conversation". Sources added that the recommendations would not simply be "rubber-stamped". One added: "The recommendations are recommendations. There is no sense in which [Kelly] or anyone else would presume that anyone is under any obligation to implement them." It will give disgruntled MPs hope that they will be able to overturn some of the most unpopular of the 60 reforms recommended by Sir Christopher's report.
In particular, there are early worries over his recommendations concerning the ban on the employment of spouses by MPs, as well as measures designed to stop MPs profiting from selling homes they were helped to buy with public funds. In both areas, there are concerns that the measures recommended by the inquiry may not be legally watertight and could lead to successful challenges in the courts. "There are some things that are in need of further consideration," a source said. "The wagons are circling on certain aspects."
Figures close to Ipsa believe Downing St has given the new body wiggle room to design its own reforms. "The report was accepted by Gordon Brown, but went on to say that it was now up to Ipsa to implement the new system." A new inquiry is planned, which is expected to include public meetings, social media sites such as Facebook, and even radio phone-ins, in order to have a "wider conversation" with the public over a new expenses system.
Sir John Baker, a former head of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) hit out at the "cowardice and hypocrisy" shown by some MPs who chose to abuse their parliamentary allowances rather than vote for a pay increase. He said a higher income was needed to attract the best people t o Westminster. "That, too, is going to require the right rate for the job, and today that will not be far short of £100,000," he said yesterday. "That means paying the right price, not settling for shoddy goods in the bargain-basement."
And one MP, Julie Kirkbride, the Tory member for Bromsgrove, who had said she would be standing down after revelations about her expenses told a special meeting of her constituency association yesterday that she wanted to reverse her resignation and seek to represent the seat at the next election.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
NowI realise she is ,in fact, the epitome of moral and fiscal virtue and her decision has nothing to do with the fact that she can get the snout back in the trough toot sweet, having been given the nod that what is said about reform is invalid because the party leaders had their fingers crossed when they said it.
The new head of another Quango, MPs expenses, Sir Ian Kennedy, gets 175,000 a year. Well paid, would he be fighting for the citizens of the UK. In all past cases, Lab have installed a Lab crony, well no change there. Sir Ian is according to the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop
Labour can never change it's spots, it is in it's DNA. Crooked to the bitter end.
Labour have not cleaned this up. By slipping through this guy they have again set the electorate to lose confidence in the entire process. so the tough talk by Brown yet again is shown to be nothing more than hot air and spin and when it comes to acting he is falling very very short - letting us down yet again.
In a script for 'Yes, Minister!' this turn of events would have been blue pencilled from the script as being too silly to be believeable!
Only in the Cloud Cuckoo Land that is this Fraudsters' Parliament would the return to the trough seem 'do-able'!
Just deploy Sections 2-4 of The Fraud Act to deal with those in this Fraudsters' Parliament!
In addition to these sections, which deal with abuse of power and concealing of evidence and let's face it 'downright lying', there is an additional section;
'7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.'
The term 'article' in this act is wide ranging. As well as including an item such as a computer program for fraudulent purposes... or an instrument to bypass a gas meter...... could it, just possibly, include a 'front body' to ensure that any action aimed at halting fraud is delayed or made ineffective?
Enter the new 'independent' body IPSIS whose mission statement would include returning MPs to the trough! Are the qualities required of the members of this body to be those of the three 'wise monkeys'-
'Seeing no fraudulent practices!- Speaking of no fraudulent practices! - Hearing of no fraudulent practices!'
Let's just bypass all of those in this Fraudsters' Parliament and deploy The Fraud Act 2006 which came into force in January 2007!
Let's do it now!
Then ..... and only then.... will the tagline line for this country CEASE to be;
'Citizens Burn While MPs fiddle!'
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months* is crucial. A sitting MP doesn't have to quit if he or she is sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. The law should be amended to read for 12 months and a day. They can see how much they can get away with and if caught get backon the gravy train after they've done their time.
But it's all taxpayers cash at the end of the day & they will all grab as much as they can as fast as they can.
Why would a turkey vote for Christmas!
I regret that I agree with your comment! To all intents and purposes we no longer live in a 'parliamentary democracy' but in a 'parliamentary dictatorship' involving an increasingly deluded group who really believe that they have done nothing wrong! ...... and if they have done it was not their fault! ......... and what business is it of ours, the taxpaying citizen voters, anyway!
Perhaps it all started when the term 'political class' began to be bandied about!
We need a disinfecting General Election!.... And we need it now! ...... followed by a not inconsiderable number of prosecutions for fraud ......... followed by a musical arrangement based loosely on the sounds produced by the slamming of a variety of cell doors behind ex MPs!! Who says nothing 'creative' and 'cultural' can be gleaned from the actions of these fraudsters?
[quote]If the UK was invaded, bombed and occupied by another Nation's forces? What would you do if this Nation then went on to change the very fabric of society in favour of their own particular political model? Would you try to repel the invaders, would you fight for the country of your birth or would you welcome them with open arms?[/quote]
You would probably be best doing exactly what Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are doing with their New Labour Party Trojan Worm and work to destroy the Capitalist System which supports the invaders from within, and use a lot of spin to make it seem as if you are doing the exact opposite ....... and hope that no one guesses your real agenda and realises the Games you are playing for the Socialist cause. These guys are real heroes.
OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN ALL SEATS WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO THE ELECTORS GETTING DECENT CANDIDATES AND THAT IS FOR ALL PARTIES
For the first time in my life I am considering voting for an independent candidate at the next election or even one of the many parties who are so often decried by the politiicans/media (BNP excepted).
Lets see how these paragons of virutes find the real world when hopefully ALL 647 lose access to the platform of the Gravy Train, some of them have held a season ticket for so long it has become as dog-eared & tatty as themselves. Whilst the relative newcomers are either so inexperienced parliament/legislation is being dumbed down to accommodate them, not to mention far too many who had said dog-eared season ticket 'willed' to them by some political dynasty with no proof of suitability other than they could stand the dizzy heights to be parachuted into a constituency they knew bugger all of or had any affinity with.
This could be our last opportunity to give these arrogant, talentless, hypocrites a nose so bloody shares in Kleenex leads the world economic recovery.
Lets not forget, keep it to the front of our minds & when the time is right lets give them what they deserve, Brown, Cameron, Clegg you & your parties are living of borrowed time.
Personally I hope this time next year all have been consigned to the dustbin of history & the UK population have taken back their country from the self centred, & yes I know we have to be careful of that we wish, but I'm sickened by their duplicity to the point where my support (albeit conditional) for Europe must take second place to the rights of the electorate to have their voice & if they had chosen
to reject the Lisbon Treaty then I could live with that far easily than I could with a ratificaion of proposals that even the most positive polls show an 80% rejection?
At next years General Election vote for democracy and with it an end of the 2/3 party system that continually lets us down whilst they have enjoyed a Status Quo the BBC are seemingly quite happy to broadcast.
Its your last chance UK so stop moaning and go for it.
The power is in our hands now; it may not be again.
The continuation of sleaze, greed and slippery dealings within and without the Westminster environment is repulsive.
Has the 'mother of Parliaments 'no shame..? Quite obviously, NOT.
There are many people out there that would do a fantastic job as an MP for £65,000 pa. It's just the establishment do not want us to find out - after all then all fat cat salaries would have to be reduced - even Sir John Bakers. Just kick these guys of the gravy train. If they can earn more elsewhere let them !!
To imagine for one moment that an MP has any right to be called 'professional' or to lay claim to any sense of 'earning' the job, is an affront to every worker in the country.
In what sense is the majority of current MPs not 'shoddy goods'?