Voter Confidence

Gosh, we are lucky aren't we!....  I have lifted these numbers from UK Polling Report after they did all of the work and analysed last night's You Gov Poll commissioned by the Sun.

Asked which party the statement "The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind of society I want"
Conservative 33%
Labour 29%

On Being "Led by people with real ability"
Conservatives 24%
Labour 18%

On "Prepared to take the tough and unpopular decisions"
Conservatives 27%
Labour 21%

Finally on the negative statement "It seems to chop and change all of the time, you can never be sure what it stands for"
Conservative 23%
Labour 25%

There are some more results at the other end of the link to UK Polling Report on the MP expenses scandal and on MP confidence in general.  I guess in part, poll numbers can be quite low as we are a multi-party country so outlook and allegiance is spread wider than the two main parties.  The Tories are ahead, but it's hardly Champagne time that only 24% think they are led by people with real ability or that they are considered less wishy-washy by 2% fewer people. 

A pox on all their houses indeed.  After the General Election with a new House of MPs there need to be some serious efforts to open up the system and begin to regain public trust.  I think just opening the system up so that all public expenditure can be checked by the public would bring about a big chunk of good will, even if that means more wrong-doing is exposed.  It is the system that does not work, and if people have faith that their money is not being wasted and that it can be checked up on there can be a way forward.  More of the same and public confidence will pass the point of no return.

Blinded By The Complexity

Part of the reason the expenses scandal has been such a big story is that it is something that registers with just about everybody, not only because it was our money they were spending, but because the it is tangible evidence that MPs do not live in the same world as the rest of us. In our world we have expenses systems that would have rejected payments for duck house and bell towers that would have stuck to limits and not paid a penny more and wrong-doers would have been referred to the police, not some special review committee.

This post could just as easily be called "they just don't get it", or, "they think we’re all thick".

The BBC is reporting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority which is being set up to replace the fees office is going to cost £6.6m in the year 2009/10 in set up costs, which is SIX TIMES the amount being chased for repayment after the Legg Review.


1. It is a contradiction to the notion of Parliamentary Supremacy that a QUANGO be set up to set rules and regulations to Parliament. Parliament is supreme; it writes the laws, for it is supposed to be at the top of the legislative food chain. Or, I should say USED to be supreme. It is a tacit confirmation of an adjustment to EU and Soviet style structure that a part of the Government be a regulatory QUANGO. 

2. It does not and will not work. The Soviet Model was corrupt; the EU can't get its accounts signed off (and is proud of that fact).

3. It is an example of how Government does not serve people's best interests that it would set up a regulatory body at Six Times the cost of its own corruption. None of the Westminster Parties is championing the case against this; Why not?

4. It is all a load of nonsense... We are, as the settled title goes... being blinded by the complexity.

All that is and ever was needed is for the police to throw into Gaol those who have already corrupted the expenses system, as these people are guilty of theft. The fees office is not above blame here either.  Not 3 MPs, 300+ of them have been asked to pay money back, many of them into costs of thousands of pounds.  This would require Parliament to submit itself to police investigation, instead of asking one of their own to do the job for them.  The New Rules then need to be agreed upon in and by a sovereign Parliament and the Fees Office responsible, entirely for ensuring erroneous payments are not made in future. Finally every receipt and every expense in a streamlined system are published on the internet for the whole world to see and scrutinise. Finally, MPs must pass a House Resolution that explicitly accepts that the Freedom of Information Act does not extend to matters of cost to the public purse. If constituents feel their MP is claiming too much, whether it is within the rules or not they then have the opportunity to question their MPs on this.

The cost of this is negligible, and it how things should have been done all along. MPs and Peers are the only people in this whole country that not only could have got away with stealing such vast sums, but have escaped en-masse from suffering punishment for their crimes.

Every day it seems there is something in the news that cost us £X millions or £X billions and people are getting dazed by it - we never vote for these things they just keeping getting paid for out of our money. None of the major parties in Westminster is standing up to this, there is a consensus on so many of these things, we only ever find out what we have paid for, we are never asked what we want to pay for.

No More. We absolutely as a people need to take back control from Government and start dictating to them what we want and when. And it starts with this election campaign. God help any candidate that knocks on my door because I am likely to tear them a new one. There is no complexity to honesty, it is the most straight forward thing in the world - it is in dishonesty that we need layers that must first be peeled away before truth is revealled.

Of course, on the day of this announcement MPs have adjourned for a two week break and will not be around Westminster to answer questions. Have they really nothing to work on that a two week break in February can be accommodated?

MPs wonder why people hold them in contempt; they should take a good long look in the mirror.

Legg's Rebels - Former MPs

This is part four of four, and becasue I am lazy here are the names only this time, but I include the page reference if anyone wants to go look up the details from the Legg Report. 

Former MPs

Irene Adams – P. 154
Ivor Caplin P. 156
Roger Casale – P. 157
Helen Clark – P. 157
Lorna Fitzsimons – P. 160
Adrian Flook – P. 160
Ian Gibson – P. 161
Ivan Henderson – P. 162
David Jamieson – P. 163
Owen Jones – P. 165
John Lyons – P. 165
Diana Organ – P. 167
Richard Page – P. 168
David Stewart – P. 171
John Mark Taylor – P. 172

FFS

I don't like to repeat myself too often, but this time I am going to.

Can someone please explain to me how Gordon Brown can claim to be leading the way with the expenses saga with Labour MPs when HIS CHIEF WHIP IS A REBEL!  How can any Labour MP be cajoled into going along with Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations when the very man he needs to go and make this happen has not paid back his own infringements! 

If Brown is unaware, it is proof that he is completely out of touch; if he is aware, it proves he is a hypocrite.  If he knows and can do nothing, it proves how weak he really is.

Hardly leading the way is he?

Add to this the revelations that Labour's three MPs heading for the dock are being represented by Labour Party Solicitors - Yet more proof, where none was needed that Brown is completely out of touch with the public, has no control over his own party and is happy to take one line in public, and follow a different line when he thinks no one is looking.

Brown tried to prevent the release of MPs expenses, then he tried to redact them, then he has cynically used the public furore as reasoning to see out the full length of this Parliament, and then has failed, completely to reform the MPs expenses system, or to improve trust from the public.

Bring on the election!

Legg's Rebels - S - Z

This is part three of four setting out who the MP's are who have yet to repay to the public purse the amounts recommended by the review conducted by Sir Thomas Legg.  

Alison Seabeck – P. 129

Double paid £795 for rent in November 2005.

Was overpaid £1,167 for mortgage interest in October 2007.

Overpaid £444.65 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,406.65
Paid - £1,612.65
Amount Outstanding - £794.00

Barry Sheerman – P. 130

Was overpaid a total of £331.95 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 to 2006-07.

Was overpaid £225.26 for council tax across 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £557.21
Paid - £311.95
Amount Outstanding - £245.26

Clare Short – P. 131

Paid twice for house repair claim of £599.14 in 2006

Overpaid by 189.90 in 2005 when payments should have been reduced on the dissolution of parliament.

Paid £1,206.50 for mobile phone bill charged to the ACA when this should have been claimed under Incidental Expenses Provision.

Paid £3,736 for gardening over three years which exceeded the maximum allowable by £736.

Paid cleaning costs of £2,546.40 in 2006-07 which exceeded the allowable limit of £456.40.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,187.94
Paid - £599.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,588.80

Alan Simpson – P. 131

Overpaid by £1,503.67 for mortgage interest in 2008.

Has failed to provide sufficient evidence for mortgage interest payments for January to March 2009 for claims of £2,265.

Paid £2,527.50 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the maximum allowance by £527.50.

Overpaid £219.72 for water bills in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,515.89
Paid - £219.72
Amount Outstanding - £4,296.17

Keith Simpson – P. 132

Paid twice in 2006 for a phone bill for £120.74.

Paid £209.87 out of his ACA for a phone bill which relates to his constituency office rather than his second home in 2004.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £330.61
Amount Outstanding - £330.61

Marsha Singh – P. 132

Overpaid £4,505.44 for mortgage interest over four years.

Paid £521.40 for mobile phone bills which are not allowed under the ACA.

Legg recommended Repayment - £5,026.84
Amount Outstanding - £5,026.84

Angela E Smith – P. 133

Overpaid £1,428.81 in mortgage interest over four years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,428.81
Amount Outstanding - £1,428.81

John Smith – P. 134

Mortgage interest payments not correctly adjusted around time of dissolution of Parliament by £683.78.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £683.78
Amount Outstanding - £683.78

Michael Spicer – P. 135

Claimed £15,612.87 for gardening over the five year period, exceeding the £1,000 annual limit by £10,612.87.

Claimed £10,179 for cleaning over a three year period, exceeding the £2,000 annual limit by £4,179.

Was paid £730 for a dishwasher in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £317.50.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £15,109.37
Paid - £5,109.37
Amount Outstanding - £10,000

Gerry Sutcliffe – P. 138

Overpaid by £2,361 for mortgage interest in 2004-05 as these payments included capital repayment.

Paid £125.14 for mobile phone costs claimed on the ACA which is not allowed.

There is an additional £300 of overpayments spread over some unspecified claims over the five year review period.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,786.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,786.14

Dr Des Turner – P. 141


Was overpaid by £1,930.94 for mortgage interest over five years.

Was additionally overpaid by £2,476.72 for mortgage payment protection which is not allowed under the ACA.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,407.66
Amount Outstanding - £4,407.66

Sir Peter Viggers – P. 143

Sir Peter had an arrangement with the fees office to receive periodic payments regarding the total running costs of his second home. Upon review the Legg report concludes that £15,293.12 went towards gardening over the review exceeding the maximum allowable by £10,511.62.

He was overpaid by £1,637.54 for roof repairs in July 2007.

He was further overpaid £759.54 for mortgage interest in the year 2008-09.

He was overpaid by a total of £556.60 for council tax in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £13,464.30
Reduction, by appeal - £218.50
Amount Outstanding - £13,245.80

Ben Wallace – P. 144

Overpaid by £1,079.99 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,079.99
Amount Outstanding - £1,079.99
Robert Wareing – P. 145

Was paid £11,462.58 over five year period, exceeding the maximum of £2,000 annually by £1,462.58.

Paid twice for unspecified expenses relating to the period of 24th February to 17th March 2005, resulting in an overpayment of £1,296.30.

His mortgage interest payments were overstated by £574.31 in 2004-05 and £558.81 in 2005-06 resulting in an overpayment of £1,113.12.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,892.00
Reduction, by appeal - £215.86
Amount Outstanding - £3,676.14

Betty Williams – P. 147

Was overpaid by £750.25 in mortgage interest over five years.

Legg recommended Repayment - £750.25
Amount Outstanding - £750.25

Shaun Woodward – P151

Overpaid by £656.24 for mortgage interest in 2007-08.

Overpaid by £813.91 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 when payments were not reduced correctly based on the dissolution of Parliament.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,470.15
Paid - £1,426.42
Amount Outstanding - £43.73

Phil Woolas – P. 151

Was overpaid by £3,350.86 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Was paid for gas standing charges of £60 in January, February & March 2008 which were not debited from his account, resulting in a £180 overpayment.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,530.86
Reduced, by appeal - £2,644.70
Amount Outstanding - £886.16

Derek Wyatt – P. 152

Overpaid for mortgage interest by totalling £718.01 for the periods 2005-06 and 2008-09.

Overpaid by £776.76 for service charges in 2004-05.

Paid £666.43 twice for various items in 2005-06 and 2008-09.

Overpaid by £1,290.30 for council tax across four years.

He was paid £160 twice for cleaning and ironing in November 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,611.50
Amount Outstanding - £3,611.50

Troughers Charged

Excellent news.

Kier Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield are to be prosecuted.

Morley who is the Labour Party MP for Scunthorpe is charged with two counts of false accounting.  The first charge relates to his mortgage claims between 2004 and 2006 where he pocketed in excess of £14,000. The second charge relates to mortgage claims between March 2006 into 2007 when he was claiming on the same property despite there no longer being a mortgage on that property.

David Chaytor who is Labour Party MP for Bury North faces three charges.  The first is for a claim for IT services for £1,950 using false invoices.  The second is for claims of £12,925 in rent of a property that he in fact owns.  The third charge is for claims between September 2007 and January 2008 when claiming rent for a property that actually belongs to his mother.

Jim Devine is the Labour Party MP for Livingstone and a former minister and faces two charges.  The first for claims of dry cleaning totalling £3,240 using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.  The second charge relates to stationery claims totalling over £5,000 made using false invoices.

Lord Hanningfield is a Conservative Peer and he faces six charges all relating to false accounting.  Some of his claims for overnight stays are contradicted by records which show he was driven home.

Each of them could see themselves face gaol time of upto seven years.  This blogger hopes that the prosecution team makes a very public example of these men for their crimes which have had an immeasurable effect on the whole nation.  If there is further evidence of wrong doing passed to the Police, and I believe there may be, I hope the example setting does not end with these four.

Legg's Rebels - M - R

Following on from my earlier post here are the sitting MP's with surnames M - R who have not repaid based on the Legg Enquiry as per todays report.  From the news tonight, the CPS is said to be looking at these from tomorrow.

Dr Denis MacShane – P. 102

Dr MacShane was paid cleaning costs of £7,354 for the years 2004-05 to 2007-08 which exceeded the £2,000 per year limit by £1,354.34.

In September and October 2008 he was paid for gas without providing sufficient evidence that it related to his second home as the invoice related to his first home.

He has also been requested to provide mortgage interest statements to back up claims totalling £6,001.34 for the period April 2004 to January 2006 and has been allowed until the 1st March 2010 to provide them.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,507.73
Potential Future Repayments - £6,001.34
Paid - £1,354.33
Amount Outstanding - £153.20

Khalid Mahmood – P. 102

Overpaid 211.30 for mortgage interest for April – September 2004

Overpaid for rent by £332.91 for April – July 2005

Legg Recommended Repayment - £544.21
Amount Outstanding - £544.21

Shahid Malik – P. 103

Claimed £1,050 for a T.V. in February 2006. This exceeded the guideline price of £825 by £225.

He was overpaid by £935.56 for council tax payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Claimed £65 in court summons costs, not allowed green book rules.

Claimed £730 for an armchair in 2007 which exceeds the guideline price of £550 by £180.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £ 1,340.56
Paid - £1,304.43
Amount Outstanding - £36.14

Anne McIntosh – P. 107

Received £4,948 for gardening costs over a four year period which exceeds the allowable amount by £948.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £948
Amount Outstanding - £948

Patrick Mercer OBE – P. 109

Paid twice for £2,273.06 on mortgage interest claim in 2004.

Overpaid by £1,099.51 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,372.57
Paid - £2,273.06
Amount Outstanding - £1,099.51

Anne Moffat – P. 112

Overpaid by £1,617.09 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Claimed £1,256.44 for items relating to her main home in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,873.53
Amount Outstanding - £2,873.53

Madeleine Moon – P. 112

Received £599.25 for cost of removals from Wales to London in 2005 deemed to be excessive.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £599.25
Paid - £88.96
Amount Outstanding - £510.29


Kali Mountford – P. 113

Claimed for taxis totalling £340.40 on ACA which is not allowed.

Overpaid for £832.97 on council tax in 2007-08.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,965.70
Amount Outstanding - £1,965.70

George Mudie – P. 114

Overpaid by £182.51 for mortgage interest in 2007-08

Legg Recommended Repayment - £182.51
Amount Outstanding - £182.51

Dennis Murray - P. 115

Overpaid by £136.16 in mortgage interest 2004-05 to 2005-06.

Paid £25 for rejected Direct Debit payment and a £25 collect fee in 2008, neither of which is allowed under the ACA.

He was paid £9,652.68 for cleaning costs over four years exceeding the maximum allowance by £1,652.68.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,841.84
Amount Outstanding - £1,841.84

Paul Murphy - P. 115

Paid £2,830 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the limit by £830.

Claimed £1,280 for a wardrobe in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £510.

Overpaid by a total of £1,140.72 for mortgage interest in 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,480.72
Paid - £243.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,237.72

Kenneth Purchase - P. 123

Overpaid by £1,000.12 for mortgage interest over four years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,000.12
Amount Outstanding - £1,000.12

Andy Reed – P. 124

Paid twice for quarterly service charges in a number of incidents totalling £891.48

Legg Recommended Repayment - £891.48
Amount Outstanding - £891.48


Linda Riordan – P. 125

Overpaid by £2,021.81 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Paid £150 twice for ground rent in 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,171.81
Amount Outstanding - £2,171.81

John W Robertson – P. 125

Claimed £1,750 in petty cash in 2004 which is not allowed.

Paid £7,225 for cleaning costs across 2004-05 and 2005-06 exceeding maximum allowed claim by £1,225.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,975.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,975.00

Terence Rooney – P. 126

Overpaid by £167.00 for mortgage interest across 2005-06 and 2007-08.

Overpaid by a net £130.02 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 (taking into account an estimated underpayment in the last three months of that year).

Legg Recommended Repayment - £297.02
Amount Outstanding - £297.02


Joan Ryan – P. 128

Overpaid by £5,121.74 as the claims included capital repayments.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £5,121.74
Paid - £322.45
Amount Outstanding - £4,799.29

Read the rules and give us our money back!

Legg's Rebels - A to L

I have managed to scan the Legg report, and there are quite a few Rebels who have paid back only part, or none of what Legg has requested back.

I reckon the number tops over 10% of all surveyed, and over 20% of those asked to pay back.  Strangely, there is a large number of MP's who have paid back more than asked, sometimes by a ridiculous variance that raises new questions.

Here are the rebels, I will refresh as I update.  Page reference is as per the .pdf page, as viewed here - in case you want to go see what the report states.

Margaret Beckett - P. 37. Gardening Claims exceeded maximum allowance by £2,539.75 between 2006 & 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,539.75
Amount Outstanding - £2,539.75

Nick Brown (Chief Whip) - P43. Over claimed for a cleaner.  Total Cost claimed was £8,697.65 over the four-year period which exceeded the maximum allowable claim level by £697.65.  This must be embarrassing for the Gordon Brown as he can't send the Whip after wrongdoers, if the Whip himself is rebelling!

Legg Recommended Repayment - £697.65
Amount Outstanding - £697.65

Gregory Campbell - P.47 Lot's of wrong claims here. 

Overpaid by £741 on hotel stays between October 2004 & March 2006

Overpaid by £1,456.54 on service charges

Overpaid by £458.56 on ground Rent

No Documents to support claims for £1,017.28 for mortgage interest in December 2008 which Legg must then regard as invalid and the whole sum subject to repayment.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,673.38
Amount Outstanding - £3,673.38

Paul Clark - P.50.

Paid £549.95 for a new washing machine which exceeded the guideline price by £164.95

In default of evidence to support mortage interest payments totalling £11,750.35 for 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £11,915.30
Repaid - £508.43
Amount Outstanding - £11,406.87

Show us the receipts Paul!

Nadine Dorries - P. 61.

Paid £882.31 twice for same hotel expenses in January 2007

Paid £161.04 twice for Internet service in April 2007

Paid £271.02 twice for telephone bill in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,314.37
Amount Outstanding - £1,314.37

Don't make US ask twice for the money back!

Barbara Follett - P. 67

Paid £34,776.30 between April 2004 and November 2008 for mobile security patrols at her Second Home.  This exceeds the Green Books remit of 'Basis Security Measures'

Paid £8,908.36 for SIX phone lines for the second house.  Deemed excessive and half the amount of £4.454.18 marked for repayment.

Overpaid by £2,812.95 in 2004-05 and 2006-07 for additional household premium for fine art, which is not allowable.

Paid £221 twice for boiler insurance in 2004.

Paid £193.78 for pest control in 2006 against an address other than her second home.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £42,458.21
Paid - £32,976.17
Amount Outstanding - £9,482.04

Have hubby pay for the additional personal security and make do like the rest of us! - Clearly a top trougher.

Don Foster - P. 68

In 2005 took out an additional second mortgage against his second home for a purpose not allowed under the ACA.  As a result he was overpaid by £3,557.02.

Overpaid £193.72 in April - June 2007 on mortgage interest.

Paid £525 twice in £2008-09 for mortgage and term valuation fees.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,275.74
Amount Outstanding - £4,275.74

Edward Garnier - P.70

Paid £1,920 for Gardening in 2005-06, which exceeds annual allowance by £920

Overpaid by a total of £301.68 for rent in 2006-07 and 2008-09 periods.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,221.68
Amount Outstanding - £1,221.68

Andrew George - P.71

Paid £1,397.34 twice for hotel costs in May 2005

Overpaid by a total of £159.44 for food in 2004-05 & 2005-06.

Overpaid by £694.44 for Council Tax in 2008-09.

Overpaid by £1,695.12 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 as two monthly claims were duplicated.

Overpaid by £168.08 in 2008-09 for duplicate payments of telephone & electricity costs.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4.348.25
Paid - £3,160.41
Amount Outstanding - £1,178.84

That's a lot of duplicate claims!

Mike Hall - P. 76

Paid £10,364.28 over four years for laundry, dry cleaning and ironing services.  This exceeds the £2,000 annual limit by £2,364.28.

Paid himself £250 Petty Cash out of ACA allowance - Not allowable in Green Book.

Also paid £250 for incidental expenses in September & October 2004; such expenses not allowed under the Green Book.

Paid £8,789 for 'household sundries' without providing any receipts.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £12,639.28
Amount Outstanding - £12,639.28

Pay it back you troughing git!

David Hamilton - P. 77

Overpiad for mortgage interest over five years totalling £2,595.51

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,595.51
Amount Outstanding - £2,595.51

David Heathcoat-Amory - P79

Paid for cleaning costs of £12,995.35 over 5 years.  Exceeding £2,000 annual limit by £2,995.35.

Paid £30,696.58 for Gardening over 4 year period.  This exceeds the £1,000 annual limit by £26,696.58.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £29,691.93
Paid - £6,122.24
Amount Outstanding - £23,569.69

Pay it back, then cut your own lawn and wash your own clothes as we ain;t paying nay more!

Geoff Hoon - P. 83

Overpaid by £1,013.13 on mortgage interest.

Paid £138.29 for gas bill twice.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,151.42
Paid - £383.76
Amount Outstanding - £767.66

Pay it back you utter, utter Hoon.

Dr Kim Howells – P.85

Overpaid by £665.11 for mortgage interest between 2006 & 2009.

Overpaid by £288 for a gas bill in 2008-09

Legg Recommended Repayment - £953.11
Paid - £294
Amount Outstanding - £659.11

Huw Irranca-Davies - P. 87

Overpaid by £2,008.19 for mortgage interest over 5 years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,008.19
Amount Outstanding - £2,008.19

Dr Lynne Jones – P. 89

Paid £815 twice for heating and radiator repairs in July and August 2005.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £815
Amount Outstanding - £815

Eric Joyce – P. 90

Overpaid by £5,002.56 for mortgage interest between 2004-05 and 2007-08.

Paid twice for a £3,000 claim for mortgage interest in November and December 2007

Also paid twice in the same period for council tax, cleaning and service/maintenance claims totalling £600.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £8,605.56
Amount Outstanding - £8,605.56

Alan Keen – P. 91

Alan claimed £1,790 for a cleaner in 2006-07. However, Alans wife, Ann Keen is also an MP and she claimed £1,000 for a cleaner at the same time and address. Thus, there is a £790amount in excess of the allowable limit to be split between the two of them.

Legg Repayment Request - £345
Amount Outstanding - £345


Ruth Kelly – P. 92

Overpaid by a total of £441.47 in mortgage interest for the years 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2008-09.

She was paid £476.39 twice for her February 2008 mortgage interest claim.

Claimed £157.90 in 2008-09 for newspapers which is not allowed under the ACA.

She was paid £631.58 in November 2008 for mortgage arrears relating back to 2003 which is not a permissible claim.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,707.34
Amount Outstanding - £1,707.34

Jim Knight – P. 94

Overpaid by £223.50 incorrectly in April 2005 after incorrectly calculated around dissolution.

He was overpaid by a total of £2,657.11 for mortgage interest between 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Claimed for a computer costing £571.06 which should not have been claimed via the ACA.

Legg Repayment Request - £3,451.67
Paid - £1,256.84
Amount Outstanding - £2,185.83


Jacqui Lait – P. 95

Overpaid by £622.94 for mortgage interest in the years 2007 & 2008.

Has not provided sufficient evidence for claims made in the period January to March 2009 which it is therefore recommended it be repaid in full.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,041.59
Paid - £87.67
Amount Outstanding - £953.92

Tom Levitt – P. 97

Overpaid by a total of £800.95 between April 2004 and March 2006 on mortgage interest.

Claimed £1,599 for a sofabed which exceeds the relevant guideline price by of £1,210 by £389.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,189.95
Paid - £412.00
Amount Outstanding - £777.95

No point asking if you sleep comfortably at night; your guests clearly do.

Sir Michael Lord – P. 99

Paid £8,784.76 for gardening costs between march 2005 and January 2009 which exceeds the maximum allowable limit by £4,874.76.

Overpaid by £289.72 on mortgage interest for two time periods.

Legg Repayment Request - £5,074.48
Amount Outstanding - £5,074.48

Is The Chief Whip Off Message?

Just skimming through the Legg Report.

Why, after all the talk, and after all of Gordon Browns proclomations about his government fully co-operating with the review, why is it that his right hand man, neighbour in no. 9 and chief enforcer in Parliament not repayed what the review has recommended? 

See P.43/44 of the pdf. 38/39 of the published copy.

If the Chief Whip doesn't back the review's recommendations, then no wonder so many MP's have yet to repay.  It also demonstrates that Gordon Browns words are just that, words.

Funny That

In May 2009 The Daily Telegraph began publishing details of expenses claimed by MP's on expenses.

On 21st May, East Surrey MP Peter Ainsworth sent this letter to the expenses office:

Sunlight is proving to be the best disinfectant in regards to MP's Expense claims.

Taxi For Ming

Nothing illegal or headline grabbing in this observation I am sure, but me thinks Sir Ming Campbell has tried to, or perhaps had to bend the rules somewhat.

Under his Additional Cost Allowance which is there to cover the cost of an MP’s second home Sir Ming has been charging for a taxi service. This is costing the tax payer anywhere between £60 and £220 per month, typically. This BTW is on top of an additional monthly claim in the region of £125 for “Parking” which one presumes means he is therefore in possession of a car.

Why is Sir Menzies charging us for the taxi’s under his Second Home Expenses when there is an uncapped Travel Expense system which he is already using to claim back his mileage and air travel?

I am going to speculate, and I stress I am speculating - that the Travel Allowance rules state that taxi services are refundable when a standard mileage based cost is applied, but Sir Menzies service invoices have related administration costs, and thus this could prove to be an example of an MP fitting the cost of a comfortable and/or convenient service into a different column to get around a particular rule.... I understand that Sir Menzies has suffered with illness in recent years which affected his hip and I would not wish him any discomfort; but did he and others in the Commons not write the rules in which the MP's themselves do not seem able to meet? 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/GreenBook0309.pdf

A Few Receipts That Stand Out....

From Shaun Woodward, a £429 phone bill from BT which seems a bit steep, but that's nothing next to his £1,056 Electricity Bill, labelled a "Green Electricity Bill" -

See Here.

Here is the infamous Jacqui Smith bill where hubby Richard had put in for Dirty Movies...
This and the rest are HERE.

... The thing is, Ms Smith accepted the mistake for claiming the additional packages as an error, and an embarrassing one at that.  However, other Virgin bills of £57.25 in December 2008 and £73.50 in July were claimed for in full.  Seems the real error here was that Hubby Richard only sent in the itemised page for the one they got caught on... Perhaps in the interests on honesty these should have also been submitted so that the phone package and broadband could have been itemised for?

We also kitted out the Smith Redditch residence with a 32 inch HD LCD to the tune of £555.74... this because Jacqui Smith declares her Sister's home in London as her Primary residence, so hubby and the kids were free to enjoy a free TV....

Well, at least the picture quality on any future pay-per-view films will be fantastic!

According to my work colleagues (half the office is looking through these today with venom in their eyes)... the BBC are reporting that Quentin Davies tried to claim £20k for a Bell Tower... Well he did, here is the receipt...

The fees office declined to pay the full amount, but did cough up £5,376.91.  Perhaps Mr Davies can explain to us how a Bell Tower is a wholly and necessary requirement of him being an MP?

Lembit Opik gets a special mention as he happily renovated and upgraded his second home with a £6,655 contribution from the taxpayer towards his £12,955 refurbishment in one sitting...

See HERE.

All of the work must have worked up an appetite.  MP's are still allowed to claim up to £400 per month for "food" without receipts.  Lembit however managed to get in a claim for £2,000, no doubt back charging for an "allowance" he had not claimed for a while. 

He must be one hungry bugger to have consumed that much food!  But here is the thing; he did it twice in one year.   A final claim of £800 ensured that the Lib Dem MP claimed the maximum £4,800 during the year on this particular "allowance".  This is not even the most interesting thing in his claims.  It seems the Lib Dem MP had some electrical problems, so he called out an Emergency Electrician... but why on earth did he call someone who had to travel hundreds of miles to do the work??

(Click to enlarge)

That requires some special Lib Dem Logic!... I can only wonder allowed what the Carbon output must have been.  Not very considerate on Mother Earth was it.

If I get chance, more will come later on.  Feel free to email or leave any that you may have caught in the comments.

MP's Expenses - The New Batch

These are online now for the latest period, go check out what your MP has claimed, HERE.

I got to page 2 and have just dicovered we are paying for my MP to have her Ironing done! (HERE)

Gordon Brown Just Does Not Get Anything

In a year when political stories and scandals have peaked and have tested the absolute patience and understanding of the general public, it should really be no surprise whatsoever that Gordon’s Grand Plan for sorting out the expenses saga is to give MP’s a pay rise to compensate them for loss of earnings from the inevitable cull in expenses that is likely to be recommended by Sir Christopher Kelly.

MPs are on notice, they are facing an election next year and where some are standing down, many will not be getting the chance to return as they are thrown out of their jobs by an angry electorate. So, why exactly does any MP deserve a pay rise in the last seven or eight months of a Parliament?

Let me be clear here, my feelings and my reading of public opinion is staunchly that £64,766 for MP’s who are not in the cabinet is more than enough and that given the betrayal of trust that has been exposed there are plenty of people who are willing to stand for Parliament who agree that £64,766 is enough. If there is any pay rise corresponding to the withdrawal of MP expenses then it should only be for those who are able to face their constituencies and secure a new mandate to be in Parliament AFTER a General Election.

It is becoming increasingly clear that as Labour get closer to the election and the nearer they get to slipping from power, possibly forever, they are becoming more and more prepared to go against public opinion to do what they like, and what suits them. On the score of MP’s expenses and salary there are a lot of Labour MP’s heading for the exits, why would people without principle act in with principle by doing what is best for their constituents, or for their country. To whom do these constituents look to? Whatever did happen to the notion of honourable gentlemen? (and honourable ladies, of course)?

Brown is acting from fear (again), and senses there will be wide spread rebellion in the coming months if he cannot buy of Labour MP’s to keep them in line; if he can’t keep them in line Parliament cannot function and an election would be necessary.

We need EDM 2090, or something like it so that constituents can select their candidates and we need a General Election. This Parliament is dead, and all the news and all the initiative that come in the following months will be accompanied by a decaying stench that will be ever-present to whatever it is attached.

Expense Reclaim

Tomorrow, MP's are going to return to Parliament and according to some reports as many as half of them will face questions over their Expenses claims. MP's will be instructed to repay bad claims and some of the worst offenders may face criminal charges. Sky News puts the number at 325 but The Sunday Times puts the figure around 100.

It is a positive move that some expenses have been examined and that those who have bent the rules pay back what they have stolen. However, my feeling is that by focusing on three areas of claims only, as this investigation has, we will not really get to the bottom of who has misclaimed and the full extent of the abuse. I fear we run the risk that other infringements be viewed as acceptable because it did not feature in this particular investigation. Let's get it straight; what MPs should and should not be allowed to claim must be encoded into cast iron rules. Taxpayers should not be subsidising a lavish lifestyle. It is a job of public service, if a generous salary and the meeting of the costs incurred of such work is not enough then MP's should not stand for election again. This is what must follow from these investigations, so with an election looming we need this sooner rather than later.

The three areas said to be focused on in this investigation are:

1. Mortgages. The rules state that MP's can claim the interest payments against their second homes, whereas some MP's have been claiming for the repayments as well. There are a lot of MP's who have made questionable designations to their "second house" and MP's and the new speaker have been slow to clarify the vague rules. Married and coupled MPs may have been double claiming.

2. Gardening. The rules are clear that maintenance of the garden of a second home is permitted, but landscaping and improvements are not. Some MPs were charging for potted plants and landscaping.

3. Cleaners. Certain cleaning items in a second home are permitted, such as carpets. But full time cleaners have been hired and not always (it would seem) on the second homes. The Green Book is vague on what is and is not allowed. Gordon Brown is likely to be implicated for payments to his brother for a shared cleaner. He has failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety and may be asked to pay back the money himself.

Again, I feel it is a positive step but it does not come close to the levels necessary. All expenses should be openly published without the excessive redaction that has taken place. Over a period of a few months I have been looking into my own MP’s expenses claims, and it is very hard in some cases to know if something is proper, or if it is an unfair claim because the redaction hides certain information. If these were available to be reviewed by the public and we could see more of the information people can police and highlight irregularities.

The rules need to be a lot clearer about what can and cannot be claimed for, and these decisions should not be taken out of the public spotlight. Basic claims are fine; we do not want to hinder people from doing their jobs. But if MP’s want to act like children, they will be treated like children by the public. Likewise, if they act like crooks, they should spare us the sanctimony when the public treats them like crooks. We also should not be paying for things like hotel gratuities, room service and newspapers which I have seen included in claims.

Moving forward, there are hundreds of checks and limits that could and should be in place. I suspect next year’s green book will be very widely read, and it needs to be a lot clearer that previous editions. Those stepping outside these guidelines can have no excuses in the future, they need to be investigated and the fees office needs to do its job and reject claims that are outside the spirit of the rules.

But, there are clearly other steps that could and should be taken, and should follow on from these latest actions that we will all know more about in the coming days. These are just some of my suggestions, others who have looked at different aspects of these expenses may have others – I would be happy to publish others idea’s here if anyone is prepared to offer some. It is a shame the released documents are so heavily redacted, because the public should be allowed access to details of what they are paying for. My review has cast more doubt than provided assurance, but in my mind I find it hard to be clear if this is because of wrongdoing that is concretely proven through the receipts, or because doubts are cast because of the hidden details. Nonetheless here are my suggestions based on what I have seen, [and to be clear, I still have much to review before I am will have completed my review].

Firstly, MPs have had the facility to claim “petty cash” of up to £250 per month in their incidental expenses. It is bewildering that such amounts be freely available given the ease to charge back even the most basic items for office use. Tomorrow, every MP and Peer should be asked to produce their individual Petty Cash registers and over the next few weeks they should tally up with an investigator their receipts versus the amounts drawn. It is not a stretch to see that to allow £250 per month with no checks could allow this to be abused and for regular claims to be put in as supplement to income, rather than to fund constituency offices.

All an MP has to do is write "Petty Cash" and the desired amount on a C2 form and they get it. That's it.

From the records, Cheryl Gillan MP (my MP) has withdrawn the following sums, none of which required any receipts or evidence for use.

2004/05 - £250

2005/06 - £1,450

2006/07 - £2,400

2007/08 - £2,600

A total over four years of £6,700.

Again, having looked through Cheryl Gillans expense claims, there are many receipts for all sorts of stationery some redacted, some not. It is clear that Banner provided all kinds of stationery needs from Printers & shredders to staples and flush folders. Why the need for so much in Petty Cash? I have no idea, but I would like to see the petty cash books and £6,700 in receipts to justify these claims. If 646 MP’s claimed the same sums, we would be talking about £4.3m if we took £6,700 as the average. This would be before we look at the Lords. This is for one line of a single type of expense, the amounts could be much higher.

An MP in this period collecting the full amount of “petty cash” could have potentially drawn £12,000 without any checks or follow up. This as far as I can see would have been an easy supplement of £3,000 per year for those who would have taken advantage.

It would be relatively simple for an investigatory team to total these sums and then put it to MP’s to provide their own back up. Petty Cash withdrawals should also be immediately stopped, if the existing suppliers can provide breakdowns there is no need to have a system where blank withdrawals can be made… there, that’s £1m+ a year of tax payers money saved.

Next, each office should have an inventory built based on the expenses receipts. Cheryl Gillan has made a number of Computers, Printer, Fax and general IT purchases. I am certain she would not have been the only one do have done so. It is impossible for me to accurately produce an inventory because a number of Banner statements are completely redacted so as to hide the details of what has been purchased. From my review, I find it hard to fathom why so much of this equipment and numerous computers are required. Certainly given that it would appear one secretary and her Husband are the only people on the payroll. Additionally there is a £1,600 annual invoice for the lease of two more computers. IT costs consistently seem excessive and I am not convinced if this is a wide trend that taxpayers funds are being protected.

The fee’s office or the investigators should (and could) build an inventory of all things purchased and audit all constituency offices to ensure that the big ticket items such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, printers, faxes, designer desks, and fancy chairs are being used as per their expense claims. I do not think it would have been impossible given all of the revelations that have been exposed that MP’s could have been doing some Christmas and Birthday shopping at the tax payers expense, or even a little home shopping.

Additionally, one could in Cheryl Gillans case question why four BT bills are being covered each month under the costs of the constituency office? One is the Secretary’s home phone, what are the other 3 for? In one particular slip, the people doing the redaction let the name slip….

Why would an MP’s spouses name be on a constituency office phone bill?

Again, it is the redaction that does not help. I have doubts about the validity of these, but how can I know?

I will not go into the details on the mobile bills, but again, the redaction makes it hard to understand if the multiple bills pertain directly to my MP or if others are getting their bills covered at our expense. I am not sure why an MP needs more than one mobile phone through different providers to execute their roles as our representatives.

My third suggestion to the current investigation team would be for staff costs to be checked. I think it is right and fair that people be employed to help MPs do their jobs. I am not sure that we have in place the best or easiest system to execute this. I think where family members are being employed, there is a need to ensure that work is actually being done and it is not a case of a family member being put on the payroll for token work. I am not against the employment of family members; but if a system of checking that value for money is not available and adhered to, then I think it would be against the public interest for such arrangements to continue, and in which case we should look to end such arrangements.

There is I am sure some relatively easy checks that can be done on the claims already made and I hope that some time and resources are afforded to these. Focus on the big costs like mortgages is right, but the smaller loop holes need to be checked too.

Moving forwards, I think me and the rest of the blogosphere and media could come up with many common sense limits and checks that could be implemented to save everyone from this embarrassment in the future. Yes the rules and the fees office were lapsed, but MPs took a lot of money, and spent a lot of time trying to thwart the Freedom Of Information attempts. They have been exposed, but not through their own initiatives, but through the efforts of a whistle blower and a National Newspapers’ campaign. There is much still to be exposed, and it is right that those who have abused the public face criminal charges. MPs are not above the law. If those of us lucky enough to still be in jobs did the same to our employers there would be no question of whether criminal actions would follow.

I hope we keep this in the public eye, because sunlight is the best disinfectant and also the best only way to seek a new mandate. The public must be allowed to wade through the muck and make their observations, as well as have their opinions and objections heard. We must come through this with all the faults exposed, and with all the culprits held to open account. If this does not happen, and if the public are not afforded the opportunity to act as the jury the integrity of politicians in general will never be afforded a position of respect and trust in the public mindset; and that is crucial to any government’s ability to function effectively.

Yet Another Fine Mess Gordon

The Attorney General Baroness Scotland has today been fined £5,000 for her employment of an illegal immigrant who overstayed on a student visa by five years.

The fine was for failing to keep copies of documents that The Baroness claims she checked to validate that the worker was legally entitled to work in the UK. No further action from the UK Border Agency or from The Prime Minister will follow.

The law that has been broken was advised upon by the Attorney General during its conception, as the AG acts as lawyer to the Government. In it, specific provisions were worded to ensure that employers keep copies of documents as failure to produce any documentation would not be a defence against the specific law. It is a long held standing in English Law that Ignorance of the law is not a defence against it, and all judges are held to apply this principle. There is no specific need to word such a provision really unless specific onus is required – so entrenched is the notion to law.

As such, to have an Attorney General now who advised and helped frame a law which included a provision that the onus of proof falls to the accused and that only the production of evidence showing pro-forma checks were made (in this case, photocopies of documents) to then fall foul of that law is breathtakingly incompetent for somebody of the Attorney Generals position. It is the Attorney General equivalent of wile e coyote strapping himself to an Acme missile in the pursuit of a blue feathered dinner only to go and blow himself up – Perhaps even more incompetent than that.

The whole situation has all of the hallmarks of a whitewash about it.

I say Whitewash because a £5,000 fine does not begin to resolve this little problem and yet again I think Gordon Brown has staggeringly underestimated the knock on effect this is going to have; yet seems to be a player in getting into the rush to investigation, fine, slap on the wrist, move along now, la la la we don’t care, we’re not listening chain of events that has come to pass in under a week.

I am upset, and I think you are too.

Firstly, The Attorney Generals position is just the latest of high offices in our Kingdom that has been besmirched by the appointment to that office of somebody capable of causing exceptional embarrassment to that post. It is just however the latest in a long line of appointments under this Labour Government; the frequency of scandals seems to have increased two-fold since Gordon Browns coronation. By simply flying off to the US to play World Statesman and by failing to sack Baroness Scotland, Brown has again, for the umpteenth time shown himself to be indecisive and completely unable to provide a Government of any talents, let alone of “all talents”. With crystal clarity the public gaze upon a man who yet again put his own and his party’s perceptions ahead of doing the right thing and acting in the best interests of this country. The moment the fine was issued the Prime Minister should have implemented the change, to which he would have already had lined up – that is what a leader would have done.

Secondly, the hiring of illegal immigrants is a known and frequently used tactic of employers to avoid paying minimum wage to employees. The minimum wage is the crown jewel in 12 years of Labour government, perhaps the only initative left that retains broad popularity and reminds all of us of the promise that we all felt of what was to come. There has been no word however if the Baroness was avoiding paying her worker minimum wage, which would be another offence, both under the law and in terms of holding a grand position within a government, no matter how discredited, to whom not only brought in the legislation for that minimum wage, but have and will rely upon its fair introduction as a campaigning point. Could Labour even mention minimum wage if their own AG was found to have ignored it?

It adds to the feeling over cover up that we are not informed one way or the other; could the Baroness still find herself in an embarrassing position on this?

Thirdly, when will it all end? I seem to repeat myself on this point over and over here on my blog but for every single scandal, even today, Labour follows the same instincts, the same alienating formula of self preservation. Try to change the story, deny, attack others… get found out, try to hold on to high paying, high powered position… blame the Tories, stuff the voters, stuff doing “the right thing”, quick, get Rosa, Kevin and Polly to write about how nice we are and how the Tories will starve your babies to feed their butlers…. Anyone remember what the story was, no? Great, pass the expense forms.

This brings us onto the next point. Brown is trying to draw a line under this, but the Sunday Times has already revealed that Wile e coyote, er sorry, Baroness Scotland, has claimed £170,000 for an allowance paid to Lords who love outside of London, whilst living in Chiswick, which is in, er, London. I am guessing the Baroness did not photocopy those claim forms either before submitting them. Again, ignorance cannot be a defence against fraudulent claims. The Government should either swiftly investigate and publish the relevant paperwork or call the Serious Fraud Squad – which conveniently Baroness Scotland should have the phone number for given that in her role as Attorney General she has supervisory power over it. And of course, nobody bats an eyelid that someone with supervisory powers over the Serious Fraud Squad could be involved in a massive fraud themselves... that is just modern Britain.

Perhaps Gordon Brown could clear up whether he thinks this series of events have come about because the Attorney General is a crook, or because she is grossly incompetent, or is ita bit of both? If he could elaborate on that, whilst explaining why she still has a job I think a lot of people would be much clearer.

With Brown in charge there is no one to push these lunatics over, because he’s one of them. They will cling on, and he will until next year as clearly too many of Labour Parliamentary presence have too much to lose if Brown goes. They are fighting to save each other and their own jobs now. They’re alright, but what about the rest of us who live here?

When Labour polls in the mid twenty percent range I find it hard to believe there are still people in this country that can abide by such loose and questionable behaviour in our governing officials.

If Brown had of sacked the Baroness he would have legitimately got a bump in the polls for doing the right thing, and more than that for being seen to act decisively. This would have sent a warning to rebels ahead of the Conference, and may have wiped away some of the questions about a change of leadership. With a conference platform and feeling bold, Gordon Brown could have used the conference to spell out difference in Labour and Conservative policy and cuts – he could have regained at least some of the agenda and perhaps even put dents in Conservative plans for their conference. He would have acted positive and perhaps got a positive result.

Instead… well, you know the rest.

A Look Inside Cheryl Gillan MPs Expenses - Part 1

As mentioned previously I have been taking a look through my MP’s expense claims and this is the first post with some of my findings. There will be more to come, though the time it takes to sift and sort through everything is going to make this somewhat drawn out. A bit of an intro is in order here, so that on the later posts I can dive right in.

I have no personal or professional conflict or association with Mrs Gillan, except for attempting to get a face-to-face meeting during an organised lobby of Parliament whereby participants sought an audience with their MPs to question their voting intention on the passage of the Lisbon Treaty and urge a vote for a Referendum, or reject the treaty outright. Cheryl Gillan MP was unavailable to meet me, but did write to me after to say that she was indeed voting as I would have hoped.

Why have I undertaken the task of trolling through receipts and expenses?

To start, I am upset by the revelations in the past year about MPs expenses which fits into my view that MPs on a wider scale are not accountable enough and that some are exploiting financial advantages that are available to them because of their positions. Secondly, I like moaning and pontificating, and as someone who wants greater transparency, I feel a tinge requiring me to avail myself upon its availability with the hope of demonstrating the virtue of making the most of these disclosures.

I say this to hopefully demonstrate I have not begun looking into these expense and allowance claims for the purpose of unseating Mrs Gillan as MP, or creating damage. I would be doing this regardless of whoever my MP is, and I am simply trying to highlight some of the claims. More generally, as stated on this blog I have repeatedly stated that I am very at the way in which MPs allowance and expense are administrated, and do believe that an exceptional amount of tax payer money has been wasted, squandered, laundered and in some cases out right stolen.

This task has obviously been made harder because of the efforts to censor much of the information. There are items I am going to include that I might not have done if basic information had not been blacked out. If the intention was in part to cause less of a stir by covering certain details, they may find this might backfire my experience is now that it makes it harder to be sure claims are in order.

It is my intention to carry on reviewing other sections of these files, publishing my findings and opinions periodically. Upon conclusion of this review, I then hope to construct an letter that encompasses my findings and concerns and send that to Cheryl Gillan MP so that these can be answered – unless those concerns are already addressed earlier via the official constituency site, by public statement or via this or any other blog.

I hope my efforts can be mirrored by others, and that there is and continues to be some pro-active citizen participation.

During the Telegraph revelations Mrs Gillan only came to notice for a claim made for dog-food for a few quid that was promptly refunded and was blamed on an administrative error, it seems reasonable to me that given the volume of receipts that a small claim for dog food slipped through and that it was appropriate that it be both highlighted and repaid.

I have however found some irregularities, or at least what I perceive to be irregularities; and I have found some things I am unhappy to see have been claimed for. I have been looking through the incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) for two accounting years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. I should add, what I set out below is not the full picture of these periods, there are a few entries I am looking further into before I write about them, (though depending on the results of that may not look nor write further.) There is also the following years claims and as well as the publications for Communications allowance and Additional Cost allowances.

As this post focuses on the Incidental Cost Allowances, we should first define this appropriately as the costs incurred in running an office. There is no statement of principles for claiming in the front of the 2004 Green Book, but for substance here is the list of principles for claims as listed in the latest edition, as set out in Section 1.3 of the Green Book - MPs must (now) adhere to these:

1. Claims should be above reproach and and must reflect actual usage of the resource being claimed.

2. Claims must be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.

3. Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying our his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a political party or organisation.

4. It is not permissible for a member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the member is claiming from any other source.
Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, improper financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.

5. Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.

6. Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making any claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.

7. The requirements of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, good or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.

8. Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.

The principles conclude by saying:

These principles recognise that, in the nature of our democratic system, Members will wish to explain their views about policies.

However, public money must not be used to give unfair political advantage to one political party, and for this reason there are specific controls on particular allowances.

The 2004 Green Book can be seen here and the 2005 copy here.

In the 2004 book, Incidental Expenses are defined as such:

Office and surgery accommodation

Equipment and supplies for the office and/or Surgery

Work commissioned and bought in services Communications and travel

Certain staff related costs. (In order to meet these, you must transfer funds into the staffing allowance)

[Please see the detailed guidance in section 5.13.]

Fellstream Ltd

This is the company in which the annual rent payments for the Constituency Office are paid, the payments are made directly between the Fee’s office and Fellstream Ltd.

The rent invoice is submitted once a year, and the fees office then takes care of the payments. There are a number of invoices submitted during each year in addition to the rent charges. Unfortunately many lines have been redacted so it is frequently unclear what is actually being claimed for – I make this point here as it will be relevant to later sections.

The main observations I have about their invoices are that they are handwritten on a blank piece of paper with a simple letterhead. I am not sure that my company would accept their invoices as legitimate for payment, and the given what were are looking into, accepting invoices of such quality leaves room for fraud to easily take place.

An example of a typical invoice is below.

Utilities

During the 2004-05 year, four invoices totalling £325.26 were submitted from Powergen for Electricity; the addresses have been redacted.

During the year, a number of handwritten invoices were submitted for Fellstream Ltd. Because of the redaction it is impossible for me to see exactly what has been claimed for on every line of every Fellstream Invoice but a further £84.20 was paid to Fellstream Ltd for Electricity relating to the rented office. This would appear to be a duplication of charges.

Similarly, there is an invoice for Three Valleys Water for £206.28 dated 14-Feb-04, yet during the course of the year there is one payment visible to Fellstream for the Water Meter of £34.12. Again, because of the censorship on many of the Fellstream lines, it is impossible for me to tell how much was paid to Fellstream for charges on the Water Meter.

In the 2005-06 year the same happens again with redacted invoices totalling £389.79 being submitted from Powergen, yet at least £26.06 is visible on invoices submitted via Fellstream Ltd during the same period for Electricity.

It does not appear that a direct invoice was submitted for Three Valleys Water during 2005-06 year, but at least one visible charge is made via Fellstream Ltd for water charges for £45.99.

Banner

There were consistent statements entered for Banner. Most statements have redacted the itemisation show this would appear to be the principle stationery and office equipment supplier. It is clear that items such as files, folder, staples are being claimed for.

In 2004-05 claims expenditure via Banner came to £1,103.53 and from Office World £339.34. [Total £1,442.87]

In 2005-06 claims expenditure via Banner came to £1,980.02, and £62.98 from Rymans for Ink Cartridges. [Total £2,043]

Though this seems a little high to me, I cannot see any evidence of wrong doing or suspicious claims on the banner stationery statements, perhaps partly due to the censoring but maybe because there is none.

Petty Cash

There is no provision included within the 2004 or 2005 Green Book that allows for the claiming of Petty Cash, and it is not listed as something that can be claimed for. What would be the point of implementing a system of expenses and allowance to keep MPs salaries in check if the system then just hands out regular payments of cash?

Even though it is not included as an allowable claim I have seen some forms state that no more than £250 Petty Cash is available in a single claim. This, is something I will be looking for greater clarification on as these forms would seem to provide a contradiction of the purpose and of the rules set out in the Green Book.

In 2004-05 a claim for £300 in Petty Cash was submitted, and revised to £250 and paid. This was the only claim during this year.

During the 2005-06 year, there were seven claims for Petty Cash totalling £1,450. I think it fair to question why there would be a 580% increase in such a cost year on year when there has been no visible drop-off in claims either in number or value. Furthermore, it is evident that consumable and stationery claims were being made via the receipts entered and the numerous statements from Banner, so where is all of this additional cost required?

Even though there would seem to be a contradiction in whether Petty Cash should be claimed or not, the Green Book is clear that all expenditure should be accounted for and beyond question.

Section 5.11.1 states that allowable expenditure (as set out in later pages) provided it is wholly, exclusively and necessarily on Parliamentary duties.

Given the rules as set out, in my letter to Cheryl Gillan (post review) I am going to ask if Petty Cash books or some kind of audit process has been kept to keep account of these monies.

I have not done a detailed review of the later year yet, but from a quick view Petty Cash claims remain a consistent claim in the following years.

Another Administrative Error?

In 2005-06 there is a claim entered for what appears to be a mobile phone battery, but as the receipt entered shows the amount to pay is £20 as an item valued at £79.99 in credited against an item costing £99.99. However, the claim goes in for £99 despite the receipt confirming only a £20 purchase having occurred. I have not seen a claim for the mention unopened returned product – so maybe the full amount paid was £99.99 – but surely the second receipt should therefore have been entered.

Wasted Money?

In 2004-05 there was an invoice submitted for £450 & VAT from a company called Politico’s Design, there is some redacted sections, but the one itemisation states this fee is for the registration of a URL [which then seems blacked out].
A quick Google search suggests that the registration of a URL can be done for free, and through other websites for charges less than £10.

When I checked out Politico’s Website they list Cheryl Gillan MP the URL as http://www.cherylgillan.org.uk/ but also state that the website is no longer live. Their Portfolio page is here. http://www.politicosdesign.com/project.jsp?ID=15

The Politico’s Design website invoice is dated 24-Oct-04.

There is a second invoice for web design submitted in the same year, this time for £1,500 & VAT submitted via a second company called Palace Computing. This invoice is dated 17-Jan-05 and relates to the still live website: http://www.tellcheryl.com/. However, the Publisher of this website is listed as P.H. Dumville who is a local Conservative Election Agent.

Both Politico’s and Palace Computing boast directors on their websites with close links to the Conservative party. This is not in itself explicitly against any rules, but given the sums should be mentioned at least. I am not sure that this is entirely beyond reproach and questioning.

At this point, I should be clear about another point, neither of these invoices appear to relate to the set up of the current constituency website which can be found here: http://www.cherylgillan.co.uk/type1.asp?id=43&type=1

I do not know why the original website was taken down, or even when it was taken down, but it seems excessive to me for so much money to be spend on two websites that seem fairly simple in design (no offence intended towards the designers on that score) neither of which is the standing website (again of simple design) that prevails in 2009.

Perhaps I will be put right on the point of costs by people more in the know, but for comparison sake let me make an illustration. I have created this blog on the Blogger platform, established a dedicated email account, set up a twitter feed, implemented Google Analytics, registered on various blog directories and have available to me when I see fit the brilliant cover-it-live (live blog) technology all for a competitive £0.00; and I am pretty clueless with IT outside of MS Office.

There may be no case here of rule breaking, but I think this stands out as very poor use of tax payers money.

Work Carried Out

There have been a couple of instances where work has been carried out within the constituency office and claims have been submitted via invoices headed by Fellstream Ltd; so I was a little surprised to encounter an invoice that was not submitted via Fellstream Ltd, but seems to have been paid directly.

Usually in managed premises you arrange for work to be carried out as a tenant for or you have the agent do it, it would not to be seem normal to have some done by different manners, especially with the consideration that all work costs eventually leads back to the Tax Payer. So, I highlight this only because through the censoring of these documents the address where the work was undertaken is hidden, and could potentially be an indication of an invoice for work submitted somewhere other than the Constituency Office, and may be a case where this should not have been claimed as an incidental expense.

From the itemisation we can see that there is work done on shelving, but also work done around a kitchen unit to make room for a fridge…. I have never been to the constituency office, though I cannot imagine that with a small staff there is the need for kitchen units and fridges? And a fireplace? Thus it stands out and I file this under the suspect receipts heading.

I am conscience that this post is getting unattractively long so I am going to finish now, there is more to write about, including a look at the IT equipment and phone charges – but tons more to look through so I will post occasional observations [sans long intro] every few days until I have sifted the lot.