UK

12° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Expenses Scandal

The married couple who took taxpayers for £282,731

Andrew MacKay is forced to quit as key Cameron aide over his non-existent second home

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Andrew MacKay with his wife Julie and their son

PA

Andrew MacKay with his wife Julie and their son

David Cameron was under mounting pressure last night to end the political career of one of his closest allies as the MPs' expenses scandal claimed its first casualties.

Andrew MacKay resigned as Mr Cameron's senior political and parliamentary adviser after he admitted claiming a "second home" allowance when he only had one property. He received £140,952 on the London home he shares with his MP wife Julie Kirkbride, who listed it as her main home and claimed £141,779 for a house she bought in her Bromsgrove constituency. Mr MacKay, who does not have a home in his Bracknell constituency, admitted his arrangement now looked "strange" but insisted it had been approved by Commons officials. Asked if he had done anything wrong, Mr MacKay said he had made "an error of judgement that looks wrong". Tory officials say Ms Kirkbride has done nothing wrong and had also had her arrangements approved by the Fees Office. No action is planned against her.

Mr Cameron has promised to take a tough line against Tory MPs who have made suspect claims but he appears reluctant to withdraw the party whip from Mr MacKay – which would ban him from being a Tory candidate at the general election. A survey of 1,400 Tory grassroots members found that 66 per cent believe Mr MacKay should cease to be an MP. The ConservativeHome website found that 82 per cent of Tory members want MPs facing questions about their behaviour to face deselection meetings.

On a day of shame for Parliament, Elliot Morley, a former environment minister, was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party after it emerged he had claimed £16,000 for a mortgage that did not exist. The police have received a complaint about his actions from the Taxpayers' Alliance. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London and chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said there was a case for the police to be called in to investigate the claims made by some MPs.

Meanwhile, two Labour peers face a six-month suspension from the House of Lords after an investigation into allegations they were prepared to take "cash for amendments". A senior Labour source said Parliament was "having a collective nervous breakdown."

Today, The Daily Telegraph accuses the Justice Minister Shahid Malik, of claiming £66,827, the maximum amount allowed for a second home over three years, despite securing his main three-bedroom home in his constituency of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, for a discounted rent of less than £100 a week. He denied breaking any rules, saying the expenses system was flawed.

The newspaper discloses that Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary who now sits as an independent candidate, claimed the full cost of her mortgage for two-and-a-half years when she was entitled only to the interest. She was asked by the Fees Office to repay more than £8,000. Last night she said she made an "honest mistake" when she switched from an interest-only to a repayment mortgage in 2003.

But the damage over the expenses saga continued to hurt Labour most, with a YouGov survey in The Sun today putting Labour on 22 per cent, its lowest-ever rating, the Tories on 41 per cent and the Lib Dems on 19 per cent.

Labour denied dithering over Mr Morley's case. Although it did not act until after the Telegraph revealed his £800-a-month mortgage claim, Labour sources say the party did not know the full details until yesterday. The party's national executive committee will consider disciplinary action against other Labour MPs when it sits next Tuesday.

Cameron aides denied he had gone soft over Mr MacKay to protect a close adviser. They said there was no need to discipline him because he had promised to abide by the verdict reached by a new Tory scrutiny panel being set up by Mr Cameron. It is likely to order Mr MacKay to repay the money.

Speaking on the BBC's Question Time last night amid a row over the expenses saga, the Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Huhne joined the growing number of MPs calling for the Speaker, Michael Martin, to step down after comments he made on Thursday.

Douglas Hogg, the former Agriculture minister, backed away from a confrontation with the Tory leader. On Wednesday, he cast doubt on the Tory panel's legitimacy. Last night, he agreed to repay £2,200 he claimed for maintaining his country estate "in recognition of public concern". He admitted the cost of cleaning his moat "was not positively excluded from the claim".

Greg Barker, a Tory environment spokesman, will make a "voluntary payment" for capital gains tax.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:36 pm (UTC)
If there are any honest MPs out there, as we the public would understand the term, would they please raise their hands?

Currency in tatters, no manufacturing base, economy run into the ground, MPs siphoning money out of the public trough as fast as they can... if anyone anywhere doubted that Britain has joined the league of third world banana republics, let them doubt no more.
An Honest MP
[info]4215christine wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
David Drew, MP for Stroud. Unfortunately his majority is only 350.

He used to have a flat in London but gave it up some time ago and now stays in an inexpensive chain hotel. At a meeting I attended as a representative of another party, I heard him speak about Stroud's continuing tradition of manufacturing and how he is keeping in constant contact with the companies that still make things here.

Definitiely a good'un.
An Honest MP - [info]had_it - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC) Expand
[info]world_of_water wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
OUT OUT OUT
[info]denbundy36 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
all bastards!! bring back public hanging!!
MP "expenses"
[info]victhebrit wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
Let's talk spades here - many of these "mistakes" or "errors" are simply fraudulent use of public money and should be taken up by the CPS or the Fraud squad.
The worst thing about this
[info]reichtmann wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:04 am (UTC)
"...Mr MacKay, who does not have a home in his Bracknell constituency, admitted his arrangement now looked "strange" but insisted it had been approved by Commons officials..."
This is FRAUD, is it not?? Fraud against the state and the people. Others have died for less.

The worst thing is not that these people are practised parasites sucking at the public teat but that they are so boldly brazen and indifferent when their FRAUDS are exposed.
If you or I perputrated this crime this we would, rightly be in deep trouble.
If anybody stole a fraction of this from a little corner shop, even if nobody got hurt, they would be in deep trouble.
Why are these greedy fools so comfortable with their greasey excuses when they should be squirming in embarrassment and fear?
House of Thieves
[info]blu_rogers wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:16 am (UTC)
Mr MacKay you need to sell one (probably one of numerous) properties and pay us back in full. Think yourself lucky you wont be going to jail.
Expenses Scandal
[info]ross676 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:18 am (UTC)
Why are these people not being prosecuted!?!
If the average person on the street were found guilty of such fraudulent practices, feet wouldn't touch etc!!
Re: Expenses Scandal
[info]bonkers2 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:49 am (UTC)
Hear now what about the poor chap who had pay back the costs of having the moat cleaned around his country house ,just think of the uproar if one of his constituents had fallen in to a dirty moat .A moat is an excellent deterrent that allows with the help of a drawbridge one to decide on who should be allowed access to ones own property . The cost of cleaning and upgrading moats should most definitively be allowed .
Dregs And Scum!
[info]infangthief wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:25 am (UTC)
They have proved that it's possible to be both at the same time...
Lock them up & throw the key away
[info]leonard_merryl wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:34 am (UTC)
And that includes leading criminal "Lord" Peter Mandelson, the property-speculating thug - whom sadly we can't vote out of power since his New Labour criminal pals made him a "Lord".
There all at it
[info]repton4 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:49 am (UTC)
Mr Shahid Malik described the claims against him as a non story, for him maybe but not for the British public, He also claimed 65 pounds for a court summons for none payment of council tax wich he said he would pay back, ONLY BECAUSE CAUGHT WITH HIS FINGERS IN THE TILL HA HA HA Theses people are a joke, Any one caught on the fiddle should lose there job and be taken to court for fraud.
Clare Short
[info]south_seas wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:09 am (UTC)
I'm no MP lover but Clare Short says she paid the money back in 2006 if this is so then your article is doing her a diservice
Re: Clare Short
[info]shuffle09 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:30 am (UTC)
Claire Short paid back blah blah ago?she shouldnt have bliddy took it in the first place and if these people do not understand right and wrong then why are they in government for a second longer?
Re: Clare Short - [info]tatcawh - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC) Expand
from a stupid?poor person.
[info]shuffle09 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:36 am (UTC)
as far as i can think there is only 3 reasons why these MPs did what they did:
1) they didnt realise right from wrong because they are stupid:unfit for government
2)they didnt realise right from wrong because they were mentally ill:unfit for government
3)they did realise they were doing wrong:unfit for government

is there any intelligent people who could give me a different explaination?
JUst looks wrong???
[info]nomuppet wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:43 am (UTC)
'he admitted claiming a "second home" allowance when he only had one property.' ..'Asked if he had done anything wrong, Mr MacKay said he had made "an error of judgement that looks wrong".'

So, if we all claim for an extra child allowance giving fictious facts would that just look wrong or would it actually be wrong? Or how about claiming insurance twice for only once incident? Either this man is incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant and either way he has no business in the Tory Party.
Re: JUst looks wrong???
[info]themartindale wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)
I think being incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant more than justifies his being in the Tory Party
Re: JUst looks wrong??? - [info]abs1978 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Stars of...
[info]thisanthat wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 02:28 am (UTC)
the fill yer boots brigade. Not only are their boots awash with taxpayer freebies buts so are their wellies and waders overflowing!!!!!!
Custodial Sentence !
[info]drug_baron wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 02:38 am (UTC)
Whay are these "honourable members of society" not being considered for custodial sentences.

Are the police and the judiciary in their pockets ?
Re: Custodial Sentence !
[info]rojaws wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
Are the police and the judiciary in their pockets ?

Very propably.
Don't forget, in corrupt regimes police & judiciary are there to protect the ruling classes.
They are not there to dispence justice.
Don't lose sight of the fact that most of our 'laws' involve fines (usally heavy) which go to swell the coffers that these parasites are so freely fleecing.
"very probaly" - [info]cronyblatcher - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Custodial Sentence ! - [info]hiragani - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Will anger register at the ballet box?
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 02:51 am (UTC)
What I want to know is will people take their anger to the ballet box? Will the electorate punish the main parties at the European elections - and perhaps at the local elections as well?

Apart from, perhaps, a slightly lower turnout in June my instinct says that it won't make any significant difference and that the vast majority of the public will have "got over it" by the time of the next General Election.

Who was it that said "No one ever lost money under-estimating the general public."

Re: Will anger register at the ballet box?
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)
The ballet box, do you mean where toffs sit watching Swan Lake?
fraud is fraud
[info]gaius_godd wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 03:39 am (UTC)
Fraud is fraud.
and
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 04:09 am (UTC)
the fact that there is no fear of prosecution since the cancer is also visible at the top of the 'justice' tree
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6290459.ece
Re: and
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:50 am (UTC)
protection is also available from a benefits fiddler in charge of police
http://www.virginmedia.com/jobs/features/fiddling-expenses.php
Parliamental "expenses"
[info]jochebed2 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 04:47 am (UTC)
Scamming us "legally" may make the scammer feel better, but not the public. Stop it already and pay the money back.
Rough justice
[info]alanski wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:07 am (UTC)
A few days ago a poor old deranged man was shot to death by the police, another allegedly died armed with a bloody crossbow. They paid the ultimate penalty in what appears to be dubious circumstances with no recourse, they're dead. So how is it these swindlers can walk away because they followed the rules. Looks like the police followed their rules too, so let's see how far they get with this bunch of crooks. My guess is, not very.
Negligent or incompetent?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:27 am (UTC)
"Tory officials say Ms Kirkbride has done nothing wrong and had also had her arrangements approved by the Fees Office."

This is simply not credible, an elected representative such as Julie Kirkbride has a responsibility and an obligation to ensure that public money is used appropriately wherever she is involved.

As the second home allowance claimed by her husband involved a property she claimed for herself, are we to assume that husband and wife never discussed their financial arrangements. Was she totally unaware that her partner and fellow MP was claiming an allowance on a property that she was also claiming for?

If that is the case, then she would appear so naive and unworldly that many of her constituents might want to consider if they want her to represent them in the future!
MP allowances
[info]bonkers2 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:30 am (UTC)
I believe these MP`s are being undermined by the petty mindlessness , people in positions representing the general public us are under a great deal of strain The last thing they need is to be worried about is going a few pounds over budget .It`s time to call an end to this witch hunt and allow them to return to the job of governing the country .
Re: MP allowances
[info]repton4 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
are you for real were did you ever learn to breath through your arse
Re: MP allowances - [info]bonkers2 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: MP allowances - [info]kuma2000 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: MP allowances - [info]arthur_ide - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 04:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: MP allowances - [info]andrea_2 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: MP allowances - [info]bonkers2 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 10:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Crooks
[info]johnnywi wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:31 am (UTC)
These guys are pikers compared to our American politicians. They wouldn't get out of bed in the morning for this kind of money.
Re: Crooks
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 07:29 pm (UTC)
Yep, you may understand the horror of being governed by bloodstained *petty* crooks as quislings
No, it's not envy
[info]clayfooted wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 05:57 am (UTC)
I'm a civil servant. My branch of the service is important for a huge number of little people, as one seems to have taken to calling the majority of UK taxpayers. I spend a lot of time explaining to poor and elderly folk that they may be over-paying tax, through no fault of their own, and how to reclaim it. (Incidentally, the UK education system does not have room in the curriculum to give the basics of tax/NI to those who need it, as these data do not contribute to a GCSE.)
I earn less per annum than Elliott Morley claimed for his dodo mortgage. Yet I'm a "gold-plated" over-paid, bottomless-pension-pot owning bastard to an awful lot of people out there.
It's not envy - I'm a graduate and have a lot of things in my life that count for far more than money ever could. No, it's not envy - I'm just tired of it all.
Re: No, it's not envy
[info]proximaking wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 06:51 am (UTC)
Well one thing's for sure if my pension rights can be downgraded on the whim of a CEO then so can a civil servants. Whether you think it is not copper bottomed or not it absolutely is compared to the vast majority of the people's who are forced by law to pay into your pension. Thankfully people make laws and not civil servants so when we get MPs that actually represent the majority your pension rights will obviously decrease markedly to become in line with ours and in fact as we are your employers your pension rights will be less but you won't mind and your colleagues won't mind as you say because you are privelaged to be allowed to serve us. If you don't want to work for a pittance and be a servant of the masses you could always become one of the masses by getting a real job. I remember a friend of mine left the oil industry to go into teaching and they were complaining about performance interviews with headmasters etc and how ridiculous all of this was but as he told them this has been the norm in the real world for over twenty years at that time. He couldn't believe how petty these supposed adults were who were teaching our kids, but what do you expect when you can become a teacher straight out of school/college? They wouldn't know the real world if it jumped up and bit them.
Re: No, it's not envy - [info]virginia_1976 - Friday, 15 May 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC) Expand
Possible soloution
[info]not_danish wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 06:19 am (UTC)
It would appear to me that in 2012 we will have some ready made accommodation for MPs near London. Its called the Olympic village. This should ensure that after the games the area does not die, it would be the MPs temporary home from home. No more second home allowances, just a comfortable place to stay when in London. There will be areas designed to be secure, so the cost of policing should be low.
Bring on the darts, ther have to be darts ..... to get rid of the clowns.
[info]proximaking wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 06:21 am (UTC)
I think this MPs career path, which is fairly common shows us what has gone wrong, ...... became an MP at 27 blah blah blah. That is he became an MP without having any idea what real life was about, becoming an MP was a way of getting out of the rat race and onto the gravy train. I think that these people really are blind to their faults and that is because we have MPs there decade after decade with no real chance of ousting them. The solution? Take the electoral roles around the country and randomise them, then have a young child throw a dart at the list spread out on the ground, whoever the dart hits must serve as the MP for six years barring mental or other health issues. If you have a business it will be looked after for you. Evry two years change out one third of the MPs this same way. The MPs can choose a leader as normal and since we know they are representative (by definition) we can reduce the number of MPs by half to around three hundred. Civil servants run the country really but who would you rather have grilling them? Someone like David Cameron, who has no idea of real life either, or you or me grilling them instead? Rolling, Random, Representation, ...... only a non-democrat would disagree with that, even the thickest person chosen at random would have more life experience than any of the numpties in there at the moment.
Re: Bring on the darts, ther have to be darts ..... to get rid of the clowns.
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 15 May 2009 at 01:18 pm (UTC)
If we are to maintain a government by representation then this is the only sensible option. It works for juries so why should it not work here? There are no arguments against it apart from some of the more salubrious members of society may forget to refer to "the right honorable gentleman" and instead refer to "dat fookin kant dere". At present all we get are dozy toffs who are completely disconnected from the real world (I was surprised how many paid mortgages but I do suspect a con) - who have been to a state school, who have worked for minimum wage, rode on public transport, had to use the NHS etc.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date