´óÏó´«Ã½

This is not about bringing in new 'rules' or laws. It's simply about MPs acting decently and honourably - as they and the rest of society are expected to.

We don't need laws, we just need personal integrity. These people know full well that their actions are dishonest, but their greed and mendacity is ingrained.

But we can guarantee that ere long new laws will be put forward - whilst simultaneously the lawyers and accountants will be plotting to circumvent them.

Part of the issue here is that by concealing or attempting to conceal things from release under FoI, for something that public funds are used, will only add to greater suspicion of the public. I am sure journalists with lesser scruples will try and make a story out of a food shopping bill.

In addition, some MPs are talking of aligning pay with senior civil servants (again). So why do they not also adopt the same rules that apply to civil servants about making travel and subsistence claims.

Finally, the civil servant model could be applied to the staff that support MPs. The HoC could recruit and pay for the staff used by the MPs and supply the equipment and stationery. The entitlement could be agreed and monitored to a maximum limit. That would provide far greater control over MPs expenses than is currently present. It will also make MPs budget the use of resources within their entitlement.

Every day I pinch myself at the absurd lengths MPs will resort to so that their fiddling is kept a secret!

It's stunning and so self-serving! Do Honorable Members undergo some sort of commonsense bypass when they arrive in Westminster?

Or is it just that candidates actually are attracted to politics in order to cream off the tax payer - perhaps that's why Andrew Walker is worried!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, if it's not Dumbledore of Canterbury advocating Sharia Law, it's an idiot MP up to his snout in the trough...

MP's should be subject to the same requirements of any person claiming expences in any commercial organisation - receipts for everything or they don't get paid. This is perfectly reasonable - MP's get enough of an allowance to employ somebody to keep a tally of these things.

Nick, you won't need to spend your career worrying which brand of cornflakes an MPs like: like the rest of us, they will (should) be paying for them out of (taxed) salary and will therefore find, like us, it is a private choice. However, when MPs do put in an expense claim for groceries then I want to be able to see, not so much what was bought as to its justfication.

In the 30-odd years I have spent working in large multi-billion institutions I was expected only to claim what was ACTUAL and REASONABLE, and be able to back it up with a RECEIPT. Why is that so difficult for MPs to accept?

This new information beggars belief. Why do MPs think they can operate above the law, common decency and the way the rest of society is expected to behave?

Time for the regime in the house of commons to reflect the way a business would be managed. And time for MPs with snouts in the trough to be treated in the same way as a benefit cheat would be.

MPs accounting for their expenses should be a no brainer. Any organisation I have ever worked for or belonged to, all expenses had to be accounted for. No receipt, no recompense. Tough love maybe but why not? It should be even more so with Taxpayers money. With the Tax burden ever increasing, for what seems little improvement even more accountability is a must. I view with increasing disbelief the behaviour of MPs. There is constant talk of restoring trust and creating transparency in politics and government but here we are right back at the good old days. Its alright for the vox populi to be accountable but not for their lords and masters. This is 2008 not 4th Century Rome.

The excess and greed of our mp's has to stop. FULL STOP.

MP's should be subject to the same requirements of any person claiming expences in any commercial organisation - receipts for everything or they don't get paid. This is perfectly reasonable - MP's get enough of an allowance to employ somebody to keep a tally of these things.

As a public servant for all of my working life,I am disgusted that MP's are allowed to CHEAT the tax payer of so much money. Out of my meagre Old Age pension I have to top up my elderly mother's care at £48.50 per week.

One could argue that if the publication of expenses puts off potential MPs then we are well rid and they should never be considered for such a job.

Keep up the good work, Tiger Robinson. The more you and your colleagues in the press gallery bring up these outrageous wastes of our taxpayers' cash the lower MPs' reputations fall. But that is because that is the respect we should have for them. If only this had come out in 2002 we might have been able to stop them wasting British lives, finances and reputation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry to "mention the wars" again, but that is all that will define this generation of parliament to future historians. That and the implosion of our economy between now and the London Olympics. Their shameless trough snuffling is only a symptom of their waste, but one worth exposing.

Surely just checking 200 odd claims out of hundreds submitted is not enough. It must also be remembered the huge number of un-supported claims made where the MP does not have to produce receipts.
It looks as if not only family members can be employed by MPs but they can be bought TVs under the heading of food !!!

You should have a look at mileage allowances. When I worked in the Commons in the 80's, many MP's had Ford Sierra 2.3litre Diesels. An odd choice of car perhaps?

Not when you consider that 20 years ago they were raking in 74p a mile on any car that had a 2.3 litre engine or bigger.Proabably equivalent to about £1.50 a mile today.

There were apocryphal stories of Scottish MPs driving to Westminster in order to claim the mileage.

At 1986 prices a return trip to Scotland of this kind would have yielded profits roughly in line with a normal person's wages.

Nick,

In an earlier article you quote "Mr Walker, the Commons director general of resources, said the National Audit Office checks on 227 claims for individual items last year had shown they were processed correctly.

But he added they were checking the Commons authorities' methods - not whether MPs had actually spent the money on what they claimed. MPs were ultimately held accountable at the ballot box, he said"

Question for Mr Walker. How can I hold my MP accountable for abuse of the system if neither you or my MP publish your accounts in detail? Every other member of the Public Sector MUST account for every penny spent, with receipts, under rules brought in by these same MPs - their arrogance would be astounding if I wasn't so cynical.

As MP's are employees and pay PAYE Tax, if they are to receive 'fixed rate expenses' without the need to produce receipts a dispensation is required from HMRC to allow this to paid without a Tax deduction.
I wonder if any other Employers have managed to negociate such a package?

The humblest parish councillor must now sign a Declaration of Interest form. For MPs - who voted for that legislation - to complain about themselves being scrutinised, is hypocrisy in the extreme.

Sadly public service is not staffed by public servants anymore. It is staffed by money grabbing, self serving hypocrits and they should be treated as such. That is to say they should now come under independant scrutiny and those that do not measure up should be expelled.

As regards life peers looking for £500k pay-offs as they loose their jobs. Welcome to the real world of everyone else. Think yourself lucky you still have that big fat final salary pension you voted to retain for you and the lower house.

We, the people, do not have employers that would tolerate expenses claims without receipts. Why should we, the people, the employers of these MPs, tolerate them making expense claims without receipts.
We don't all have to see and approve these receipts, but someone does on our behalf, and not on parliament's behalf.

Double MPs salary and then take away all their expenses and allowances. It would save us a lot of money.

Until MPs have to live and behave like their constituents, their employers, we will never have a democracy that represents us, the people.

If as they say this would be an intrusion or I can imagine the next thing will be an infringemnt of the human rights, does this mean that all of us who have to fill in expenses claims are also being abused?

Imagine how that will go down in business.

Why should MPs be treated any diffrent from any other working people.

As Nick pointed out a while back - these are "honourable" members of the House. But the whole issue is that we, the general public, no longer see them that way. And as more information about these seemingly endless perks comes forward, it really isn't doing the MP's any favours.

Train passes for partners (not just married partners), no oversite, housing, food, what's going to be next? We all like perks, and I doubt if anyone would object to a subsidised bar/food, but employing the family - no.

I work in the NHS and if i present a claim for expenses without a receipt it is either denied or paid minus tax - why do MPs believe that they are above the levels of scrutiny that all other public servants are rightly under - it can't be cost as there are millions of us and only 600 odd (being a very good descriptor) of them - set the standard and live up to it!!!

Surely if you have no reciept, you get no expences? What private company (or HMRC) would allow any £ without proof?
Money on admin costs (even if it is the MP's wife/sister/brother/guy across the road) is fine, as long as it on a pay scale that would be paid normally.
Why does the HoC not allowcate eg 1 sect, 1 researcher for every MP as basic on a set salary withe the remainder up to the MP- with rules which any normal firm would allow?

£250 is more than someone on minimum wage earns in a week. I don't know, and actually don't believe, that the majority of MPs are milking their expenses, but they should realise that until they do submit proper returns, just like the rest of us, people will think they are.

Why are MPs expenses not as "transparent" as the average company expenses? Snouts in troughs yet again. It has to stop if politicians are to command any respect from the electorate

How can they talk about an intrusion into MPs' private lives when we are talking about their spending of money which they haven't earned and which doesn't belong to them? When did that become a private matter? If MPs don't want people to know what they spend money on, they should stick to spending their own and not mine.

I just find it incredible that MPs can govern themselves like this. They vote on their own pay rises, their own rules... if something goes wrong they conduct their own whitewash inquiries. Why on earth aren't there more checks and controls to ensure that our elected representatives are actually answerable to someone? This whole thing is a complete sham and no better than a dictatorship.

Many of my university lecturers are claiming these particular instances and the whole party loan debacle as mere drops in the ocean and are a whole fuss over nothing.

Whilst they are correct on the first point I do think that my well educated elders are missing point, especially at a time when the government itself is increasingly demanding more transparency from its public.

Supposedly innocuous corruption is corruption none the less.

Why can't our Members of Parliament be subject to the *same* rules on "expenses" as the rest of the British Civil Service?

Just look what happens when any Civil Servant tries to reclaim expenditure without proper receipts. The relevant form must be correctly completed, relevant receipts attached and the putative claim has then to be formally approved by the claimants appropriate "Senior Officer" before a single penny changes hands.

And the whole claim process is anyway subject to audit at the associated organisational unit level and, ultimately, to audit by Her Majesty's Comptroller General!

Send Sir John Bourne to the Palace of Westminster.

Why are MPs expenses not as "transparent" as the average company expenses? Snouts in troughs yet again. It has to stop if politicians are to command any respect from the electorate

I have worked in many Government departments and have a higher security rating than I suggest many backbenchers possess - so I guess I must be trusted to a certain degree.

However, myself and many thousands like me are scrutinised when claiming expenses. If we don't have a receipt for an item for more than £20 then we have to declare exactly what it's for - and it has to be an applicable expense as do those unreceipted expenses of less than £20.

If this can be done for thousands, then there's no reason it can not be done for the 600+ MPs, unless they wish to continue with the reputation that they defraud the system (ie the Taxpayer).

No business I've ever worked for in 13 years has such a cavernous 'non-disclosure' expense allowance. The travesty of this situation is that quite frankly, when presented with such an opportunity, MP or no MP, most folk would love to have this sort of flexibility and would use it and want to protect it from prying eyes. However, it's pillaging our national bank account! With something like 646 MP's, that equates to just over £3.1m a year that can be claimed without question!! Scandalous.

"the demand for more and more information stems from a view that their system of expenses is so obviously open to abuse."

I would disagree. The demand for more and more information stems from a view that so many of them are totally bent.

As Nick has said before - these are "honourable" members, from times when we could trust them. Sorry, but the dug their own graves and with all these discoveries the public trust them less and less.

Train passes for "partners", living expenses, watching debates with just 6 people in attendance, the list goes on and on. I'd love that job, even with the unsocial hours.

Have any of them really tried to justify these unaccounted expenses with a sound argument? Even then they must be squirming in embarrasment.

Face the music Members - justify yourselves honourably and with receipts.

Why does Westminster not follow the pattern of the Scottish parliament in that members expenses are available on line.

Openness in use of public money when MPs are carrying out their proper duties is surely not asking too much of them.

Have they become so divorced from the public not to realise that the general public are expecting clarity and true governance of the monies allocated to them

It reminds me of the convivial Line Manager who recieved an email one day asking why exactly it took 14 people to take out one client.

Westminster should take a leaf out of other freedom of information regimes.

The FOI legislation in England together with the overseeing Information Commissioner is lacking in teeth.

If MPs want to bury stuff under their Axminsters they do so. Accountability takes a flying leap.

MPs expenses may or may not be an FOI issue, but the overarching ethical principles are one and the same.

As cowboy Conway so ably demonstrated, if our elected friends behaved with dignity we'll cut them some slack. If they take us for a ride, then we'll be waiting for the fall.

The Scottish Information Commissioner, for one, takes no prisoners and won't kowtow to those who put him there in the first place. His ruling that McLetchie disclose his cab receipts felled the Tory leader; just imagine what a bonanza he'd have in SW1. Taxi for...

Just out of interest, does anyone know whether NPs have to justify their 'expenses' to the Inland Revenue? Everyone else does - and the Revenue then tax them for the less-justifiable components of the claim. So detailed information is already available to the Government, presumably, about how their own civil servants rate these 'expenses' claims from MPs.
But maybe MPs don't have to file tax returns like us mere mortals? Maybe they are amongst the elite who've been told not to file returns electronically as the IR website isn't secure?...
So we will soon have not two but three tiers to our legal system: common law for the common man, Sharia law for the Islamists who deny the most basic rights to Christians in Muslim countries, and institutionalised corruption for those who title themselves 'honourable members'.

We don't need to keep receipts for food when we travel on business for our institute - instead we claim a per day allowance based on the number of meals we have bought for us each day. This reduces the amount of time spent on administration and works out therefore as a cost saving. Four hundred a month isn't that much if it's a business expense - we're not I suspect talking about the occasional sandwich.

Compared to colleagues who have to keep every single receipt, get multiple copies when we eat together and other hassle I think our system is vastly more sensible. I'd rather see my MP and his staff dealing with issues I care about than worrying about whether he has the receipt for a meal he ate a few weeks ago.

Is'nt it funny that not long after the recent rumpus over the MPs expences and benefits claims. A benefits minister comes up with the idea of stopping people who maybe can't get a job. Housing benefit or the chance to live in a council property. To save taxpayers money. I think this is a bit hipocritical. Or is it just getting back at the poorest of our society as usual. Remenents of the poll tax earer.

And to think they have the cheek to feign surprise about cynical attitudes towards politics...

When the Conway story first broke, it seemed that a greater degree of transparency in MPs' expenses would be a sensible solution to this corruption. That these suggestions were met with hostility from politicians was perhaps predictable, but this latest report is truly shocking. Leaving aside the issue of ipods and receipts, what on earth is the moral justification for a 'grocery budget', enough to comfortably feed a family, when MP's salaries are more than 60k to start with?

The more that these stories trickle out (and you can bet there's a few to come), the more I'm convinced that the whole expenses system is in need of radical reform (and not in the New Labour sense, mind). Secretaries should be employed by parliament and assigned centrally. Some modest accommodation in central London should be made available for MPs, replacing the second home allowance. Train fares to and from the constituency could be claimable on expense, upon evidence of a receipt (even the 60k salary might struggle with a weekly return to Scotland, in fairness), but really, there's not much else you can justify.

The old argument that talented people take a pay cut to become MPs, and so need to be compensated with a nod-and-a-wink 'expenses' budget is nonsense. Most parliamentarians are deluding themselves if they think they're capable of earning serious money in business, law or commerce, and those that could usually have lucrative second jobs anyway. Teachers and Nurses are more important, more skilled and work harder than our part-time MPs, getting by on much tighter salaries. Why no 100k expense account for them? It seems the old public service ethos still exists in these professions. The House of Commons could use a bit more of that.

Is'nt it funny that not long after the recent rumpus over the MPs expences and benefits claims. A benefits minister comes up with the idea of stopping people who maybe can't get a job. Housing benefit or the chance to live in a council property. To save taxpayers money. I think this is a bit hipocritical. Or is it just getting back at the poorest of our society as usual. Remenents of the poll tax earer.

I'm staggered that they can claim this amount without receipts - in any other job this would lead to HMRC classifying it as subsistence rather than reimbursement of expenses and therefore 'benefit in kind' and taxable.

Surely most companies operate a system of either 'receipts required for all claims' or 'receipts required for all claims over £10'? - why isn't the Commons the same?

I agree it wouldn't be appropriate for full receipts to be visible but sensible categorising as suggested would make sense.

Chez Longue???

MPs are "accountable at the ballot box"? Oh, I don't think so! We have to vote for somebody, or it counts as a spoiled vote. And what guarantees do we have that the person we vote for is not going to be hiding his/her expense claims? Our political system just stinks, I'm afraid. Even if the whole mass of us refused to participate in the foolishness of voting for these cynical moneygrubbing politicians, it would make no difference. The mind boggles, when one stops to think...how many tiers of government do we now have? Local, National, Devolved National and Brussels are the examples that come immediately to mind. If this sort of dishonesty is duplicated across every layer of government, just how much taxpayers money is being wasted like this?

I also commend Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to investigate every single MP on their tax return. This smacks of one rule for the masses and one for the privileged. The amount that Revenue should be able to claim back from these swindlers could fund the 2012 Olympics...!

Can it not simply be put this way: "If you have nothing to hide, why can you not declare what you bought?" When I submit my self assessment to the Inland Revenue I am expected to be able to provide a receipt for all my purchases and deductions. And if I get audited and can not produce the receipt I get in trouble! So why does an MP who earns over 60.000 pounds a year get to claim more than my family spends on groceries in a month without producing receipts?
Maybe next time I submit my forms to the IR, I'll follow their example?
Somehow I don't think it'll stick in court!

MPs were given an extra £10,000 each for a website last March (they voted for it) and Ms Harman gave them an additional £10,000 last month if they agreed to the 1.9% rise to match the Police.
That's an additional 34% on the basic MP's wage!
More peanuts anyone or shall we download a few more tracks for our ipod?

It's not just a case of receipts it's the fact that they can claim for so many extras in the first place. Most peoples' salaries have to cover ALL their expenses, with a few expenses allowed before tax. But it seems as if MP's salaries are entirely given for their own pleasurable spending as they can claim extra for: staff, 2nd homes, transport, communication, office equipment and stationary, work related entertaining, clothing, and now we discover that their food bills can also be covered. What's left to be paid for from their actual salaries?
What's more they seem to be able to award themselves a larger than average pay rise every 13-14months because they can then say they haven't had a pay rise "in the last year". With bonuses like that not everyone will be put off by the minor details of accountability.

A man or a woman who has paid full rate national insurance contributions for 90% of their working lives will receive the 100% pension at their state retirement age, 65 for a man 60 for a woman born before 5.4.50.

The current 100% pension is £87.30 per week.

so that's £12.70 a week less than an MP can claim, unchecked, for his food alone?

After a slight scuffle with the Scottish Information Commissioner, the allowances claimed by all MSPs can now be found fully detailed on The Scottish Parliament's web site. Below is the link for Wendy Alexander's expenses.

Perhaps this is a model for the UK parliament that would prevent any future temptation to put in bland claims. It would also lead to more public reassurance that their MPs had nothing to hide.

The Speaker has to take more of a stand than he has done already to make sure reform is imminent.

I find this extraordinary. I run a business and I expect my staff to provide reciepts for virtually all expenses - a rule which I also apply to myself. If I operated these rules, they would be abused. Yet another example of a total (and all too typical) disregard for responsible stewardship of our money by those who like to think they are our leaders. Is it any suprise that increasingly these professional politicians (who have never done a real job of work in their lives)are regarded by the rest of us as little better than crooks out to line their own pockets at the publics expense!

It's time for MPs to head for the unemployment office. Next election there will be a box on the ballot paper headed "Vote on Issues". Representative democracy is dead and the spectacle of pigs at the trough will soon be a thing of the past. What would you like to see change in this country? Next time you vote, you'll be voting for what you want, not which MP will put his hand in your pocket.

Nick

Were you asleep during your French lessons? I suppose "chez longue" does contain two French words, but I assume you meant "chaise longue"?

Paul

When up to 60% of the electorate dont vote are we now chipping away the cast iron guard as too why?why do so many MP's remain silent and inactive on so many serious issues?is it because the perks of the job are to favourable?is it right that an ex PM can take a job with a leading bank?is it right that MP's can claim such high expenses then endorse such a low income for underskilled workers?why on earth cant a political party chose a deputy leader without it costing an arm and a leg,is it because the more money you have, the better your chance ?why do MP's consider themselfs self employed when thay are none productive in terms of tax?

Nick, why is Dave Cameron dithering to decide whether he should make all Tory MPs to publish their expenses?

If all MP's expenses claims were investigated, is it possible or likely that fraud charges could be brought against MP's falsely claiming expenses.

WHAT IF all MP's had made false claims and were caught out. Could they all be charged, convicted and sentenced in court. Would they then be barred from going back to being MP's afterwards.

Who would then run the country?

Or would they vote themselves immunity from prosecution?

It would be interesting to know how many MPs pay exactly £399 a month, every month, for food.

The suggestion that people would be put off becoming an MP by being under closer scrutiny is laughable. Before elections, there are people queuing up to be selected and at the elections themselves they beg us to vote for them, kissing our babies, shaking our hands and even helping out with our chores on occasion. It reminds me a bit of the old argument about paying rail and utility bosses high salaries while those industries were still nationalised. They always used to say that low salaries would mean the bosses defecting to the private sector, but again, they still queued up to do the jobs. Let's face it, some jobs are just very in-demand, not just for the money they bring in, but for the very motvating power and influence they bring to people who do them. That will keep being an MP a popular option, however their expenses change.

Andrew Walker is a symptom of the digraceful mailaise that currently infests British politics.

Discourage prospective political candidates? Does he not realise that those who would be discouraged are precisely the sort of snouts-in-the-trough people that we do not need or want.

What is needed is those in politics with a genuine sense of public service ethos.

Never in recent years has there been such a disgraceful breakdown of trust between politicians and the public.

Shocking and shameful.

Any system which allows the claiming of expenses can and will be abused. MPs are subject to human nature and are taking advantage of what is on offer to them. If they truly want respect back, then they have to take the lead and set us all an example, and be totally transparent. We all set our standards by those of our parents as we grow up, and we also take note of what our esteemed leaders do. They are, after all, in a position of great authority, and therefore influence. Every time we hear another story of poitical corruption, it is a nail in the coffin of our democracy

If I claimed £5 expenses for something which I did not have a receipt for and/or which I was not entitled to claim for, the Inland Revenue would be down on me like a ton of bricks!

Since the salaries of MPs are rarely debated, the easiest solution is to raise their salaries by the "expenses" amount.

Problem solved.

The question whether MPs deserve their current salaries is not Britain specific. But I don't think it unbelievable that an MP would spend 400 pounds on food.

Westminster should take a leaf out of other freedom of information regimes.

The FOI legislation in England together with the overseeing Information Commissioner is lacking in teeth.

If MPs want to bury stuff under their Axminsters they do so. Accountability takes a flying leap.

MPs expenses may or may not be an FOI issue, but the overarching ethical principles are one and the same.

As cowboy Conway so ably demonstrated, if our elected friends behaved with dignity we'll cut them some slack. If they take us for a ride, then we'll be waiting for the fall.

The Scottish Information Commissioner, for one, takes no prisoners and won't kowtow to those who put him there in the first place. His ruling that McLetchie disclose his cab receipts felled the Tory leader; just imagine what a bonanza he'd have in SW1. Taxi for...

Surely if all 650+ MP's had to submit receipts for every item of food they purchased the expenses office would be swamped with piles of paper requiring more staff to deal with the claims and resulting in higher costs? That way any 'savings' made would be swallowed up.

I once spent several months working away from home and was given a set allowance on top of my salary for 'sustinence and miscellaneous expenses' and did not have to provide receipts. So it does happen in the 'real world' and no I wasn't an MP!

I'm not going to defend some of the arguments put by the House of Commons, and think the argument for more monitoring of how MPs spend their expenses - but I think there is still an important counter argument for a lot of what has been said here.
In this system of government we, the public, have the opportunity to judge how MPs have done their job every election, where if we are unhappy with them we can throw them out.
If every possible expenditure is made public and published for everyone to see - how long will it be before people look through it for ways to criticise individual actions of MPs - a large restaurant bill might have been worthwhile if it meant a company creates lots of jobs in the MPs area, but will that stop some of the papers criticising him. In other words you remove actions from their outputs - the only place to judge MPs by their results is at the ballot box.

Surely if all 650+ MP's had to submit receipts for every item of food they purchased the expenses office would be swamped with piles of paper requiring more staff to deal with the claims and resulting in higher costs? That way any 'savings' made would be swallowed up.

I once spent several months working away from home and was given a set allowance on top of my salary for 'sustinence and miscellaneous expenses' and did not have to provide receipts. So it does happen in the 'real world' and no I wasn't an MP!

Hold on, hold on! Why are we criticising our elected representatives like this? As we all know they are a highly evolved superior kind of being. They are, quite simply, much, much better than the rest of us. We should not be carping and sniping like this. We should be getting down on our knees and praising them. We should have tears of gratitude in our eyes for the way that they care for us so tenderly - giving up precious hours each day to look after our needs. Let them have their expenses. Let them have more! For surely they deserve all we can give them. We must have trust and faith in them, otherwise they might choose to leave the job, and then where would we be?

Publishing MPs expeneses claims will only give the public a view of their private lives, if they are abusing the system.

Expenses are supposed to be incurred
wholly exclusively and necessarily for the performance of their jobs.

Nothing personal about that.

Hoist by their own petards (again) - as if they care...

Why can't our Members of Parliament be subject to the *same* rules on "expenses" as the rest of the British Civil Service?

Just look what happens when any Civil Servant tries to reclaim expenditure without proper receipts. The relevant form must be correctly completed, relevant receipts attached and the putative claim has then to be formally approved by the claimants appropriate "Senior Officer" before a single penny changes hands.

And the whole claim process is anyway subject to audit at the associated organisational unit level and, ultimately, to audit by Her Majesty's Comptroller General!

Send Sir John Bourne to the Palace of Westminster.

We need a revolution to weed out the self-serving toads infesting Parliament. The campaign should focus on halving the basic salary and enforcing the rigorous expense rules that apply to the rest of us, and whilst we're at it - let them be subject to the same type of pension constraints as well.

That will go some way to ensuring that the people who come forward will have more than their bank balance at heart.

It works for many other vocational professions, why not for those who have most influence over our lives?

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

Is that not the same line they feed to use with every encroachment to personal privacy.

The 'Honourable' members are supposedly role models so they should be subject to even greater scrutiny then Joe Public.

In the real world - rather than the rarified atmosphere of Parliament - in our domestic and business lives, we are all responsible and accountable for our spending.

As others have pointed out, in business, if you have a reasonable expense it will be paid for only if you can prove it with a receipt. This keeps people financially aware, responsible and honest. Most people I know are also responsible for various budgets within their organisations, and are required to account for spending on an annual or even quarterly basis. If you blow your budget, you can expect to face some serious consequences.

It is time to demand the same levels of accountability and responsibility from our politicians. If they can't account for it then they should pay for it out of their own (post-tax) pocket. Oh, and if their department blows its budget, then they should be held accountable and fired.

Crikey wouldn't that shake things up!

When will this dystopia end?

Expenses, reviews, lost data, bank runs, identity cards, the non election, the non referendum, cash for honours, party funding, police non pay, flood warnings ignored.

How long does this have to go on before the Downing Street Ditherer packs his bags?

I'm a lawyer (sorry!) and do legal aid work.

If I don't attach a copy of the parking ticket to the bill, the Court/LSC won't pay me for that £3 or whatever.

Seeing my £3 and the MPs' expenses both come from public funds, it beggars belief that they can act in this way.

"Simon wrote:

Surely if all 650+ MP's had to submit receipts for every item of food they purchased the expenses office would be swamped with piles of paper"

But all civil servants have to do this and that's a lot more than 650 people...

I don't think "swamped" is quite the word. "Not swamped" would be closer.

NO IFS NO BUTS for everyone. Talking of being dishonest... as the work and pensions dept site says...

'Benefit fraud is benefit theft!
There are NO IFS, NO BUTS when it comes to benefit fraud. Deliberately withholding information that affects your claim is stealing. That’s why we are targeting benefit thieves!'

MPs can also, apparently, claim mileage allowance of 57p per mile whilst all other mortals may only claim 40p. Another example of double standards. No wonder people are sick to death of politicians at the moment.

When will this dystopia end?

Expenses, reviews, lost data, bank runs, identity cards, the non election, the non referendum, cash for honours, party funding, police non pay, flood warnings ignored.

How long does this have to go on before the Downing Street Ditherer packs his bags?

Why are we lot complaining about the people that we elect?
For democracy's sake, we have a non-elected Head of State in UK, reaping millions every year.
Ever wondered how many millions we can save from our taxes if we had an elected Head of State on a Prim Minister's salary?
Then we go to other countries to teach them what democracy is all about! What a farce!

Given the number of former Polytechnic lecturers that occupy (or occupied) government posts then not having to account for every last penny (as happens in educational estalbishments) must be bliss. In any other existence the Inland Revenue taxes such round sum allowances. If you spend over £5 per night on incidentals when away from home in the UK you are taxed on all that you actually spend; in any event, everything generally requires a receipt. On benefits, the Government even brought in a law saying that employing a chauffuer is also a taxable expense on the beneficiary - fair enough perhaps, unless you're a Labour Minister in which case a special exemption was created so there's no tax. Long gone are the days when I used to see the odd Minister - even during the days of the IRA bombings - travelling on the tube in the mornings. Give anyone allowances and they will abuse them. In a former company we occasionally found receipts for late-working meals (ie for staff working beyond 9pm) with something like Mum deodorant on them. Abuse has to be nailed, and accountability made the norm - especially where public money is involved. In this era of Good Governance and Social Responsibility for companies then shouldn't our elected representatives show more of it?

So the powers-that-be have decided to keep the "John Lewis" list secret for fear that the maximum limits permitted will become the going rate.

May I make a suggestion? Rename it the "Argos" list and re-calibrate it accordingly.

I thought the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was supposed to be impartial on these matters? Instead it is blatantly campaigning for change and to have the speaker removed. For example Nick hasn't talked about Sharia law but MP expenses! How is that for priorities?

I'm just incandescent with rage. How dare they! Roll on the next election.

So Andrew Walker stated that the further publishing of MP's expenses would give a "peephole" into their lives, and perhaps even "put people off doing the job at all"

I'm trying to stop myself laughing here.

An old Yes Minister Jim Hacker/Bernard exchange comes to mind...

Bernard: But aren't backbench MPs overworked and underpaid?

Hacker: BACKBENCH MPs? UNDERPAID?
How can they be, when you could fill every vacancy over 50 times, even if they had to pay for the privilege themselves?

That was in 1981! But this the crux of the argument. As an MP, Andrew Walker is a representative (a 'servant', in the most literal sense), of the public. As such, he should (if he wants to keep his job after such comments) be *bending over backwards* to reassure both his constituents and the general public of both his propreity and that of the system.

To be honest, the fact that we're talking about *public money* here, that's being effectively *given* to MPs in the form of expenses reclaim, and that they STILL complain is utterly astonishing. It shows a degree of sheer arrogance that is prevalent in politicians of either colour.

If I was Andrew Walker's constituent (I'm not, luckily) - I certainly wouldn't vote for him again.

Game Over

Andrew Walker (House of Commons director of resources) has clearly stated that he would not publish the 'john lewis price list' because he doesn't trust MP's not to abuse it.

If a man in his position thinks MP's are untrustworthy, why should we think any different!

The public don't trust politiicians because they are untrustworty - that wont change regardless of the evidence against them - but they will carry on all the same.

We, the people, do not have employers that would tolerate expenses claims without receipts. Why should we, the people, the employers of these MPs, tolerate them making expense claims without receipts.
We don't all have to see and approve these receipts, but someone does on our behalf, and not on parliament's behalf.

Double MPs salary and then take away all their expenses and allowances. It would save us a lot of money.

Until MPs have to live and behave like their constituents, their employers, we will never have a democracy that represents us, the people.

The problem is that if any MP can claim £250 without receipts as amany times as they want in one month and £400 groceries, to put it mildly how much extra are they stealing. The days of MP's being honorable have long gone if they were ever there.

If they claimed £650 per month that is nearly £8,000 slipping through the net. My understanding is they are not being taxed on that and do not get people started on the housing allowance!!

As usual the public are being treated with contempt, we could probably pay the police and civil servants from the funds being stolen.

What most people may not know is that Gordon Brown made it a criminal offence at the magistrate level not to pay tax. Prior to this, a case had to be heard before a Crown Court and usually for huge sums of money.

What has this to do with MP's expenses?

Its to do with what is called benefit in kind. If your employer provides you with goods outside of your salary then tax and national insurance must be declared and paid on the value of the benefit.

MP's are 'self-employed' receiving allowance gross of tax for salaries and expenses. Dispensations from HMRC for non receiptable allowances are set by agreement with Parliament.

Some MP's are unhappy about the status quo and feel it is wrong. However, their fear of a vengeful or partisan Speaker of the House prevents them from speaking up and rocking the boat.

It is clear to all of us that MP's are receiving benefit in kind. It is also clear that the Commons is full of ordinary people who operate their tax affairs with immunity from the law by virtue of Parliamentary privilege.

Can we have lie detector tests for every MP to see if they have been telling the truth about their expense claims?

* 93.
* At 09:22 PM on 08 Feb 2008,
* Matthew Clark wrote:

"I thought the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was supposed to be impartial on these matters? Instead it is blatantly campaigning for change and to have the speaker removed. For example Nick hasn't talked about Sharia law but MP expenses! How is that for priorities?"

I think it's pretty good actually - Nick doesn't want to waste time on other people's misunderstood interpretation of an academic who has no political power to make laws anyway!

Can any of those who peddle the "corrupt unelected EU bureaucrats" line offer anything about Brussels that comes anywhere near the behaviour of our incorruptible elected representatives of the people in Westminster.

Oh, and back it up with proof rather than a Daily Mail fantasy.

When I am required to stay in hotels on business we have a set allowance for evening meals, because it costs more to eat out than cook yourself. However, we don't get an allowance for lunches as we would have to buy these ourselves anyway (ignoring the loss of opportunity to bring a packed lunch).

Using this logic I can't see the justification for a 'grocery allowance', or are we supposed to believe that an MPs normal diet is not made up of groceries and the requirement to purchase such foodstuffs is only as a result of their jobs? Even if they're in London and not their constituency then surely there would be a corresponding decrease in the amount of food their families need to purchase.

I just can't reconcile how claiming everyday expenses can be justified as a business expense. Surely the whole point of business expenses is that they are in the furtherance of the business you are employed to do, not providing yourself with a nice ready meal from M&S to eat infront of Newsnight when you return from a late night debate.