You're blameless, Labour tells MPs as poll shows damage done
Party sends email to members exonerating them in expenses scandal
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Labour MPs have been told by their own party officials that they have done nothing wrong over expenses despite the growing controversy surrounding their claims.
A remarkable email, sent to Labour members by the Parliamentary Labour Party's office and leaked to The Independent, says: "It would be easy for the public to gain the impression from this [media] coverage that MPs are generally claiming excessively or outside the rules laid down by Parliament, which is not the case."
The briefing paper, from the PLP's resource centre, insisted that the expenses claims disclosed in recent days enjoyed "the full approval of the parliamentary authorities". Although ministers have refused to say sorry for the way MPs have exploited the system to the full, they began to adopt a more contrite tone yesterday. They admitted that Parliament had been damaged by the flood of disclosures and suggested that reforms to the expenses regime could be endorsed by a panel of the public or "citizens' jury".
Today MPs will launch a drive to restore public confidence in the system. The Commons will agree to call in outside accountants to vet every single expenses claim by MPs in future. The new audit unit will be independent of the Fees Office, which approves payments and has been criticised for failing to challenge MPs' claims. It will cost about £600,000 a year to run.
Sir Stuart Bell, a member of the House of Commons Commission, which oversees expenses, said yesterday that MPs had "lost the confidence of the public and we need to get that back". He added: "I would hope that once this body is created and is up and running it will then be hived off to the private sector, to another firm, so there is an entire arm's length between MPs and those who are dispersing amounts under allowances."
But some MPs expressed fears that privatising the operation might prevent future claims being published. Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, said: "If this is another ruse to exempt MPs from the scrutiny of freedom of information, it is as unbelievable as it is unacceptable."
The commission will also consider a plan to bring forward to next week the publication of details of payments made to all 646 MPs over four years.
An edited version had been due to be issued in July, before the uncensored 700,000 pages of claims were obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
Lord Naseby, who was deputy Commons Speaker from 1992-97, called for Parliament to be dissolved so that a "fresh start" could be made after a general election. The Tory peer said: "The great British public has lost confidence and I think that it is extremely serious. And if it is that serious, then there is only one way of dealing with it and that is to dissolve Parliament."
There seems little prospect of that happening. Opinion polls published yesterday suggest that Labour and Gordon Brown are paying the price for the expenses scandal. A BPIX survey for the The Mail On Sunday showed Labour on 23 per cent, its lowest rating since opinion polls began in the 1940s. It put the Tories on 45 per cent and Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent. A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times put the Tories on 43 per cent, Labour on 27 per cent (down seven points from last month) and the Liberal Democrats on 18 per cent. Seven out of 10 people believe Mr Brown is doing a bad job as Prime Minister and six out of 10 say he has "completely lost authority".
The grim findings for Labour increase the chances of a meltdown for the party at next month's European and local elections. Some Labour MPs fear the party will come third, which could trigger new moves to force Mr Brown to stand down before the general election. There was just one crumb of comfort for Mr Brown when The Telegraph admitted he had not broken the rules by claiming for cleaning services for his Westminster flat in a shared arrangement with his brother, Andrew. The paper said: "There has never been any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister or his brother."
Europe's example: What politicians earn
France
Salary: €62,160 (£55,236) annually, before income tax, for National
Assembly members.
*Monthly allowance of €5,790 (£5,182) for travel, lodging and
entertainment.
*Low-interest housing loans available, up to a maximum of €67,534
(£60,450).
*Deputies receive free first-class rail travel around the country
and up to 40 return flights between Paris and their constituencies.
Germany
Salary: €88,068 (£78,258) a year for German MPs.
*Monthly allowance of €3,782 (£3,360) is intended to cover lodging,
entertainment and a railcard.
*Yearly allowance of €13,660 (£12,138) for the running costs of
parliamentary and constituency offices, including staff salaries.
Italy
Salary: €65,839 (£58,506) annually for MEPs after tax.
*There is a second-home payment of €48,037 (£42,432).
*Annual office allowance (including for staff salaries) of €53,378
(£47,432).
*Subsidised health care.
*Free flight and train tickets to and from Rome. Car travel can also be
claimed.
Sweden
Salary: €62,998 (£55,981) a year, before tax, for Swedish MPs.
*Travel and home office costs are covered by parliament.
*Ministers who live outside of Stockholm are provided with second homes
rent-free.
*MPs who choose to live in their own flat receive a reimbursement of €639
(£572) , but can't claim for any improvements to that accommodation.
*Election campaign costs for existing members of parliament are tax-
deductible.
United States
Salary: Senators and members of the House of Representatives receive
$174,000 (£115,382) a year.
*Cost-of-living allowance is included as part of an annual pay rise
*In 2008 the maximum allowance for a member of Congress was $1,637m
(£1,085m).
*For senators it ranged between $2,757m and $4,416m (£2.93m).
Kunal Dutta
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
They are vile leeches, they are nauseating, they are disgusting. They are deeply offensive. Shame on them.
Let's start a new party, a new party that will wipe the old ones from the face of the earth. One that brings in a wriitten constitution, that makes Parliament reflect the country and is not controlled by an oligarchu or by 35.2% of the vote of a small turnout, that returns power and budgets to local government, that is a totally transparent government, is much smaller and that allows the public to initiate legislation through propositions or referenda. One that abolishes the House of Lords and where MPs earn the average wage of their constituents.
It can be done. We must do it. The alternative is to re-elect deceitful, unethical and immoral failures who have toiled for hours nor on our behalf but on filling out their expense and tax forms and who have put all their energy into trying to suppress this information and when they failed at that, have threatened to jail those who have told us the truth.
but the scatterbrained bolshies of the previous generation,
who naturally would only take a poor decision, given as their entire
political history was based on avarice for the occasional handful
of roubles from the kremlin.
So cheers to our glorious bear allies! Your spare change usefully
exposed the vilest traitors of the island. We trust a market rate
for your gas will be adequate thanks, and look forward to many
busy years replacing the last decade's hilariously shoddy legislation.
Is David Cameron a "bolshie"?
Was/is Margaret Thatcher a "bolshie"?
Blair, Brown, Mandelson etc. are definitely not "Bolshies" as they have grasped unfettered free-market capitalism like it was going out of fashion (oh yeah, I forgot - it is!).
Bolshevism never really caught on in this country and was discredited with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most of the upper-echelons of the 57 varieties of Marxism are now running quango's, commitees and any other form of organisation where they get to coerce the weak-willed. Pretty much like any other "religion".
No, I think you'll find it's parliamentary democracy that's at fault here. A system that allows others to manipulate their mandate and make a career out of something that should be sacrosanct. Once career takes precedence over values, decisions are never going to be made for the common good.
Interesting comparisons, but are you sure that the maximum allowances in the United States are $1,637m for members of Congress, and up to $4,416m for Senators?? If correct, the good news is that our MPs will all be applying for US nationality and booking the earliest possible flight (on expenses of course).
It says a lot about the modern Labour Party that their PLP resource centre appears to be of the view that some of their Labour MP's have done nothing wrong, in view of what has been revealed so far.
The only votes Brown and Labour are likely to get in the near future is the die hard vote-labour
at-any-cost hardcore vote. There certainly isn't any motivation for any of the rest of us to vote for them, not at this rate. I expect one day Gord will be able to make sense of it all, although by then he will have been confined to the historical folder marked counterfeit, along with Douglas-Home and Chicken Jim, as a PM elected by their party as opposed to the electorate, booted out at the first opportunity.
This nulabor government is corrupt. The nulabor corruption is absolute, lead from the top down, imposed through all tiers of social and government control, down to street level. Being rotten to the core and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither the ability nor inclination to correct itself, outside intervention is indicated.
Quite clearly, PMs should NEVER be selected by the party, but ALWAYS voted for by the public, as kevinwell points out.
The G20 demonstrations are going to look like a kindergarten outing compared with what is coming for New Labour.
Custard? Oh no - we've passed the stage of custard.
Social upheaval? The risks are high. We have suffered banking fat cats wanting their bonuses, MPs told they have committed no sin (this missive from the party is the equivalent of a Papal indulgence), a financial crisis that is far from unwinding soon and if we get hyper inflation, I think all bets are off.
Comparisions with other countries serve no purpose whatsoever. The Germans for example have been scandalised over the years by a party funding scam involving a million in a briefcase at a roadside restaurant, illegal donations disguised as gifts from Holocaust survivors and several MPs discovered to have six figure retainers from corporations.
I doubt very much that other nations would survive scrutiny, if their press had the guts to inquire.
The public have reached the end of their tether. Struggling as many of us are, this gravy train is further evidence that those who run the country, whether in politics or business, are spitting in our faces. Whether it is greedy bankers or expense-fiddling MPs enough is enough.
Many years ago, my employer assigned me to another office 250 miles away, for 18 months. I was given a monthly allowance for a second home and had to find a property to rent within the amount stated. I was also allowed to travel back to my home for the weekend, once a month, with my family.
Surely that is the way expenses should be done.
...and they are blameless - pah!!!!!
I can't imagine why, but I am now so suspicious of anyone connected with parliament coming up with any 'solution' to this problem!
No parliamentarian should be allowed near this solution.
A full and thorough investigation by the police using The Fraud Act 2006 or its equivalent should be undertaken immediately.
No politician. or indeed anyone relating to parliament, should be allowed near this investigation .... except as witnesses (under oath)...... or as suspects!
I am afraid this email shows the real contempt they hold for the public, and can anyone tell me why that rough horrible little man martin is till in place ? If he was a shop steward no wonder british industry fell apart
The problem is, they are also servants of a system of greed and inequity which goes back to the Norman invasion (if not before), and that system will not alllow itself to be overturned by anything as simple as the election of an honest political party in which the candidates vow to promote the best interests of the nation.
Indeed, declaring that they are blameless, merely highlights the extent to which this jaundiced group of people are out of touch with those whom they claim to serve.
They should go en masse.
If they don't, I suggest we all change our name to Gordon Brown by deed poll in time for the next election.
They fiddled - they've been caught - and now they are apologising.
Words from politicians mean nothing unless backed up by action.
OAY THE MONEY BACK, you scumbags!
I don't think the general public has any confidence in these scounderels and the sooner they do this the better for democracy and the country.
But I have a bad feeling that this self righteous bunch of hypocrites will just carry on plundering the coffers, all the time trying to censor any information about their expenses.
We might actually get some good MPs out of this - and not just those who are in it for the expenses.
It must be remembered it was Labour since 1997 who have been on a mission to disallow tax breaks for individuals and small companies. For example, deeming all company income as salary for one-man companies, thus disallowing ALL expenses. It is Labour with the double standards, who stole from individual pension funds, whilst they have gold plated pensions. The Tory party did not do this. It was Labour who tried to close all tax loopholes in the book, whilst they exploited any and all tax loopholes. It was under Labour that gave tax inspectors massive powers to enter people's property without notice, increased the aggression of tax inspectors, gave them bonuses for tax targets, whilst they voting to exempt themselves from the clutches of the tax man.
The Tory party did not introduce all these new laws, rules and regulations since 1997. So lets not miss the main point here. Other parties may be culpable for the expenses debacle just as much as Labour, but it was Labour and Gordon Brown who showed us the massive hypocrisy and double standards that have been in place since 1997. They made the public pay more whilst they played the system with every trick in the book. There should be a dedicated team of tax inspectors that are payed bonuses for tax targets met by looking into Labour MP's tax frauds, indeed a 'hypocrisy measure' that should be published on the web by these special tax inspectors.
They said that the current expenses system has been in place since the 1960's. So how come it has blown up now after almost half a century. The reason (apart from freedom of information) is the hypocrisy shown up by it since Labour came into power since 1997. They have done almost everything to stop the public from claiming legitimate expenses whilst they have been on fiddle for 50 years.
It's a case of 'what goes around comes around', perhaps if Labour had left the public alone, we would now leave them alone (after all we had left them alone for 50 years). The media has a duty and the public has a right to know all the hypocrisy and double standards in play, especially when it is of this magnitude and this clear-cut.
Before 1997 the financial playing field was a lot more level between the public and MP's than is now. Yes, grand hypocrisy and double standards from the Labour party since 1997 - this is the real story. Would Gordon Brown and his party get this?
You are right, they " don't get it". I have been saying the same for some time. And yes nulabour fought tooth and nail to keep all this depressing stuff to themselves. The Speaker Martin spent three hundred thousand pounds of our money trying to do just that, what arrogance. They will "get it" next month, and more so when at the GE, which of course will be held at the last possible moment. On top of all this, the final straw for me, is they want to flog off the Royal Mail, masterminded by Mandy, and his stooge Pat- the undertaker- McFadden. Labour Members who vote for this, especially those in marginal seats, would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
But the government already set what they regard as fair living costs when they set the rules on what the Inland Revenue regards is fair to claim as expenses against tax. Why do those rules not apply to MPs? Why am I expected to live on a few percent of what they expect to be able to live on while working away from home (and out of my own pocket too)...
Without corrective action on the past wrongdoing, how can we move forward.
At the moment they are saying "It was wrong, but we are going to keep all the money we took that we really should not have taken". Correcting past errors is critical to enable things to move forward.
The galling part is that they harp on about benefit cheats and morals and call themselves "honourable" and to top it all they earn more than most of the population, they are mainly from privelidged backgrounds and most are wealthy individuals to begin with!
What we need is a PURGING of government. These people need to be thrown out and investigated by the police for fraud as they would if they worked for any company in the land having done what they are doing.
A sign of how much trouble they are in can be gauged just by looking at how quick they are going about setting up this "independent company" to deal with expenses. Give me a break, we need ACCOUNTABILITY! We Demand it!
In fact, the electorate should demand that these unrepentant MPs go now.
However, I am not so hypocritical as to overlook the fact that they are simply doing what very nearly all their constituents do; ie making the most of whatever perks are legally available to them. What else supports the industry of tax avoidance?
Again, suppose you buy a sandwich for lunch every day at the office. One day you are away on business, and buy a sandwich for lunch. The rules allow you to claim it, but it is exactly what you would have spent if you hadn't been away. Do you claim it? Our culture would think you stupid if you didn't, and have the most luxurious dinner and hotel that your rules allow. People will argue for first-class travel, on the grounds that it enables them to work whilst travelling, or arrive in better condition to work, and then travel second and pocket the difference. In a 'get what you can' society, how unrepresentative can we expect our elected representatives to be? It would be a great first step if we could get our leaders to behave ethically, and we should insist on it; but I don't think we have a lot to feel superior about.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Of course "innocent" until proven "guilty" where laws and courts are concerned but for most that is not the issue. It is trusting them to spend taxpyer smoney wisely and getting "value for money" when they come to spend our hard earnt cash.
Furthermore, are the House of Commons so stupid as to believe that if they now rush through the "official" receipts this will appease the public. Clearly the Daily Telegraph would publish the official and their own obtained receipts side by side, thus showing how the House of Commons was attempting to stifle the embarrasing items. Stupid or what.