A bit late to press with this one, I blame work and other commitments so just for a change I will be linking to all sorts of other people that have already said what I’m thinking far more clearly than I will.
After a quiet summer the MPs are back to find that Sir Thomas Legg has completed his report and decided that an awful lot of them should really repay a small amount of the money they’ve fraudulently taken from us over the years. Amazingly enough this suggestion has met with a wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of “being close to minimum wage” and roulette wheel justice even from the likes of the normally sane Frank Field. In fact so painful is it for these honourable members to have to pay back some of their ill gotten gains that they’re threatening to sue or even (can you believe it?) resign. Yes it really is that terrible for them, so bad that the main parties are actually working together to deal with this horrible catastrophe.
The problem is you see they didn’t claim as much as they theoretically could have. Not all of them claimed every last penny they possibly could. The rules they claim have been changed retrospectively (Like they did for VED the other year). Except of course they haven’t. The rules always stated that:
- “Members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach.”
- “that any expenditure claimed from the allowances has been wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties”
And on the additional cost allowance
- “Only those additional costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred to enable you to stay overnight away from your only or main UK residence, either in London or in the constituency.”
- “3.3.1.
Principles You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money.
Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.” - “3.3.2.
You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation.” - 3.3.3.
ACA must not be used to meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing accommodation from:- yourself;
- a close business associate or any organisation or company in which you – or a partner or family member – have an interest;
- or a partner or family member.”
In fact the theme of wholly, exclusively and necessarily and of not giving rise to accusations of benefit from use of public funds is one that is repeated through out the document (I used the 2006 edition). And if all of that wasn’t clear enough it goes on to say that:
“The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may investigate allegations of improper use of the allowances. If you overspend, or mischarge something to your
allowances, we reserve the right to deduct the costs from your salary or, if you are leaving the House, your resettlement grant.”
So unless our MPs are terminally stupid, which is I grant you quite possible, that they were up to something dodgy and could be asked for the money back should have been very very clear. If anything I would say a much better anaology to retrospective rulings would be to liken it to how any of us can be hauled in for a tax review and asked to provide receipts and returns for the last seven years, even if up until that point we believe we’ve paid what we should have and the taxman has never hinted otherwise. If in that circumstance they discover a personal phone call wrongly claimed or some other benefit in kind then just paying back the miss claimed sum will be the least of our worries.
So when reading about this arbitrary state ruling do try to remember they’re still getting dealt with far more kindly than the rest of us. Then ask yourself just how the various TV’s and gardeners where wholly, exclusively and
necessarily required for your MP to carry out their duty.
After that I’d suggest at the first possible chance you get vote against all three of the main parties because so far they’re all as bad as each other.
