91Èȱ¬

£400 a month for food?!

Where on Earth are these politicians dining?

Ramsay's?

While I accept that an allowance for a second home in London (or contituency) makes sense, why should we (the public) pay for food? MPs can't eat in two places at once!

Isn't it illegal to destroy material once requested under FOI? Presumably there are already requests in for every MP...

Why not just pay MPs a decent salary, say £100k, and then they can claim NOTHING but travel expenses from then on?

im not a fan of revealing any address details, but for all people rather than just mp's etc.
They shot themselves in the foot by allowing authorities to sell on the voting register.

as for where they shop, definately release the info. might explain why some MPs are asking questions in favour of certain companies and individuals!

The tribunal want the receipts to be made public so that the prurient will be able to know who went to Ikea and who to Harrods for their sofa.

But this is not the alternative to unaccountability. It is a "straw man" - a separation of the debate into two alternatives - what MPs want to get away with, or an apparently ridiculous alternative that they can easily dismiss.

The issue is not us knowing what they want to spend their money on - it is whether money they have claimed is going on jusifiable expenses. If MPs want privacy then they can spend their own money instead: money from their salary or other incomes.

You need to keep up the pressure on MPs over their profit making activities. The speaker has let down the whole of Scotland with his activities. As a man of the people he has quite happily ignored his roots and while many of his constituents live in abject poverty, he tries to stop us finding out who has their snouts in the trough. It is our money and every penny they spend needlessly and immorally could have been spent on public services or returned in tax cuts.

As for journalist's expenses that is up to their employers, I am sure the 91Èȱ¬ is a good responsible user of the public money we give it, if not then it too could become the story.

Surely nobody would mind if from now on wards it was all made public. At least whatever was in the past wouldn't be brought up to embarrass them, but in the future they'd know they couldn't get away with it.

£400 lasagne? You're shopping at the wrong place...

Taxpayers have a right to see how their money is spent, in every detail. If we don't have a system of scrutiny, abuse will happen, as in every other walk of life.

If individuals in public sector jobs don't like this, they should move to the private sector.

And my remarks here clearly apply to 91Èȱ¬ employees as well!

I think people are quite rightly hacked off at the double standards being shown by most if not all MPs.

Constant demands for the disclosure of more and more personal information to Government agencies are demanded. They are justified by ,"if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear".

The average worker can't claim a penny in expenses without a receipt never mind £250 or even £50. And we certainly don't get a food allowance of £400 just to come to work.

Well the 'Honourable' members have pushed their luck just a bit too far and the public are demanding that MPs, at the very least, should have to work under the same rules as everyone else.

What is the problem? If they've nothing to hide they've nothing to fear.

The tribunal want the receipts to be made public so that the prurient will be able to know who went to Ikea and who to Harrods for their sofa.

But this is not the alternative to unaccountability. It is a "straw man" - a separation of the debate into two alternatives - what MPs want to get away with, or an apparently ridiculous alternative that they can easily dismiss.

The issue is not us knowing what they want to spend their money on - it is whether money they have claimed is going on jusifiable expenses. If MPs want privacy then they can spend their own money instead: money from their salary or other incomes.

Surely the best way for MPs to break the popular view that they're all a bunch of self-serving crooks riding the gravy train with their snouts in the trough, is to make all their expenses and pay a matter of public scrutiny.

Furthermore, individually they should only receive the national average pay. MP's staff should be paid out of a seperate fund administered by an independant body. All rises in pay and expenses to be linked to those demanded of the public sector. This might make them a little more appreciative of the concerns of their constituents ....

Taxpayers have a right to see how their money is spent, in every detail. If we don't have a system of scrutiny, abuse will happen, as in every other walk of life.

If individuals in public sector jobs don't like this, they should move to the private sector.

And my remarks here clearly apply to 91Èȱ¬ employees as well!

I can hear the sound of shredding machines whirring into action as I type.

I think there is a balance to be found here between ensuring public funds are not missused and not bogging down MP's in justifying small purchases when we need then to be scrutinising legislation and representing constituents.

As Nick said yesterday if MP's pay was improved then this messy and expensive system of allowances could be got rid of. There has always been a principle in this country that once you earnt your money you are pretty free to spend it as you wish. If you start adding forms and allowances into the mix you are bound to get elements playing the system. This would lead to MP's being paid 6 figure salaries but at the end of the day they cost the public purse that anyway. It might also attract a more varied type of candidate to the house rather than the party hacks we currently have.

What is the delemma,house of commons commission.
Micheal J Martin.
Harreit Harmen.
Theresa May.
Sir Stewart Bell.
Nick Harvey.
David MacLean.
Andrew Kennnon.

We need to know, it has gone too far, the very thought of our elected MPs using the legal system to cover up corruption is staggering.

Nick,

All this talk about where an MP shops etc is just another smokescreen. The public does not want to know the ins and outs of such things, just that MPs' expenses i.e. Public money, is not being wasted and used to falsely enrich those who are supposed to be representing the Public and also setting an example. What we seem to be saying here is that our so called democracy is incapable of structuring procedures for claiming expenses that is transparent and does not impinge on an MP's personal liberties. What has come to light is the sheer ineptitude of a sytem that is being openly abused, maybe not illegally but certainly in sprit. Also, the people who are supposed to be policing the system are an absolute disgrace for letting this MPs' gravy train chug along for as long as it has. If all that is spent by MP's by way of expenses is fair and necessary for the MP to undertake the job in hand, then that's fine. However, when the general public is being taxed to oblivion, young people are uneducated and without work and the purchase of a house and other basic amenities is getting more and more difficult MPs' expenses must stand up under scrutiny and expenses must also be transparent. In this so called modern and very drap and unhappy Britain of today MPs' have to acknowledge they have to play by the same rules as the rest of the population. After all, the MPs' make the rules don't they!

I have just had to do my private sector expenses and had to provide a receipt missing statement for a £4 car park claim where the machine failed to give me the receipt ( and it's questionable whether it will get paid ).

Isn't it time the MP's started living in the real world and stop taking all of us for everything they can ?

Its getting silly - "I" don't want to see what they are spending their expense budgets on - but I DO want to know that there is a clear and transparent mechanism (including independent audit process) in palce to ensure that all their expenses ARE legitimate and fair.

We don't yet have that from what I can tell.

So who are the handful of MP's? Are there any from the other parties?

MP'S work for their money and wheather they choose to spend it in the Caribbean, Harrods or Timbuktu that their choice. There are more pressing matters to deal with as for eg the cost of living, crime etc. So why forcus on petty issues.

Nick

Although the FOI Act doesn't oblige the House of Commons to keep their members receipts etc the advice given by the Lord Chancellor does. Equally legislation for financial record keeping is pretty straight forward in this case - 7 years.

NOw, as I work in a local authority I can say that we are obliged to keep piles of such financial information for years - no matter how trivial. Some of it in it's original formal at EU auditors do not recognise digitised documents as having legal standing. If we have to do it and justify every 5p of public money we spend why do member of the House of Commons feel that they do not have to justify their petty cash spends.

This is MY money they are spending recklessly. I should be entitled to know how it is spent. The electorate vote for MPs to represent their interests. It is not the other way around. MPs seem to thing that the electorate's only function is to sign blank cheques for them and renew their season ticket for the gravy train every four years or so.We cannot have one rule for us and another (sorry NO rules for them) All publicly funded bodies should be open to clear, transparent scrutiny and that includes the 91Èȱ¬.
Remember, Nick, that I pay YOUR wages as well. Anyway if these people were as honest as they claim then they'd have nothing to fear would they. That's their argument re identity cards and it's my argument re their outrageous expense claims

What's happening over MPs expenses and the speaker getting £17k a year in house expenses on property he owns, then chairing a committee looking into those expenses is standard New Labour and Tory practices; it's called the gravy train and MPs have been milking it for years.

It shows how rotten and corrupt the system really is and how arrogant and grasping some MPs are. And thats after they've sold us out to the EU.

When are MPs going to work out that their salary and expenses are paid for by taxpayers? Of course we have a right to know how our money is spent. Ken Purchase on the 10 o'clock news last night was a classic: who does he think he is that he doesn't have to answer questions about expenses? The rest of the world has to and that should apply even more so when it is public money? And I hardly know where to start with MEPs.

We need a debate about the number of Ministers and MPs. I'm sure we could reduce the number of each and not reduce the effectiveness of Government/legislation and not jeopardise our representation. I doubt it is a debate many MPs want to have, but that needn't be a barrier.

MPs salaries are one thing. They earn this and can do with it what they wish. However expenses are quite different and should be openly accountable, for tax payers to see.Sadly those MPs who took advantage of the special payments when they did not need them for the purpose they were set up, are morally at fault and they know they are morally wrong by so doing. Sadly this will taint all MPs and I for one have little respect for them all until openness prevails.

What is the delemma,house of commons commission.
Micheal J Martin.????
Harreit Harmen.
Theresa May.
Sir Stewart Bell.????
Nick Harvey.
David MacLean.????
Andrew Kennnon.

We need to know, it has gone too far, the very thought of our elected MPs using the legal system to cover up corruption is staggering.
It would appear that three of the above have a conflict of interest in the out come if recent press reports are any thing to go by.
This is a major test of the integrety of the house of commons and its regulating bodies.
ie. all of the above.

Aren't our MPs a funny lot? Years of mirky secrecy over their expenses and the way they run their club leads to reasonable calls for more accountability: Their answer seems to be to clothe themselves in sackcloth and ashes, tear their hair, gnash their teeth, bare their breasts and ask us to plunge the daggers in. I don't want them crucified just to demonstrate a little probity. It is apparently painful for them when the real world knocks at their door.

Of course, these items would only be made public if they are claimed for. If they use their private funds, the items remain private. As so many MPs clearly value their privacy highly, maybe they should put a price on the parts of their expenditure that they want to remain private?

Regardless of what the rules say, their political common sense should be telling them what would pass the 'blush test' if made public.

Some expenditure declared like this would actually show how busy and stretched MPs' lives can be.

Firstly, the poster above is right that the idea that we want to know whether they shop in Ikea or Harrods is a straw man.

Secondly any expenses claimed by MP's are expenses claim from their employers. MP's need to accept that WE, the general public, are their employers. They work for us and we pay their wages. Therefore, what they do with they wages if fair enough. However, what they do with extra expenses claimed above and beyond their (already significant) wage should be open to public scrutiny and I don't really understand how there can be an argument against it.

Unless MP's have something to hide of course.

How can the government members have these large, no doubt tax-exempt allowances and understand how difficult this country is for the majority of people?

Travel allowances mean they don’t understand the price of a train or bus ticket.

Food allowance means they don’t understand how expensive it can be to shop for a family

Second home allowance and probable favourable deals means they don’t understand the price of housing

No doubt their council tax is paid too

All in all, MPs will find it difficult to understand the people’s frustration at these benefits because they don’t exist in the same world we all do.

I say give them a larger salary and let them pay for everything, travel included. Let them have to budget the same way we do.

In the meantime, the people should be able to see exactly where their tax money is spent.

7. At 09:55 AM on 27 Feb 2008, Bruce wrote:
As for journalist's expenses that is up to their employers, I am sure the 91Èȱ¬ is a good responsible user of the public money we give it, if not then it too could become the story.

The 91Èȱ¬ spent £750000 of licence payers money on lessons for minority workers to progress into managerial roles. Positive discrimination is a form of racism. What happened to the best person for the job!
With that said im all for Nicks campaign to show expenses. Instead of spending millions on second home allowances cant the Govt just but a decent quality hotel for half the price of the expenses in one year alone and allow MP’s to stay there when needed!

Nick Robinson whether MPs should declare the cost of furnishing there homes at Ikea or Harrods. The answer lies in who is paying for it. If the MP is paying out of his/her salary then like anyone else it is their private affair. If however they shopping at Harrods at the taxpayers expense then we have every right to know. As for the long list of other expenses, they should be rigorously vetted and in many cases curtailed.

I work for a commercial enterprise and every penny of claimed expenses has to be supported by a receipt and further justified by an explanation if questioned. I find this a burdensome but perfectly reasonable and appropriate arrangement. I am after, all spending money which ultimately belongs to shareholders in the business.

I am a shareholder in UK PLC my vote contributes to our choice of employee and my taxes pay for their remuneration and running costs. I see no reason why the need for accountability and justification should not be applied to MPs. I suggest that the administration of their expenses is contracted out to the private sector and then detailed scrutiny and reconciliation can take place.

No chance. MPs are greedy unscrupulous people and will not submit to such disciplines. The hundredth example this year of one rule for MPs and another for the the proletariat.

Finally Nick, I do not think you and your fellow lobby journalists are doing enough to convey to MPs just how much in contempt they are held by the public. We would be more comfortable relying on 650 unelected car salesman and estate agents.

Of course, these items would only be made public if they are claimed for. If they use their private funds, the items remain private. As so many MPs clearly value their privacy highly, maybe they should put a price on the parts of their expenditure that they want to remain private?

Regardless of what the rules say, their political common sense should be telling them what would pass the 'blush test' if made public.

Some expenditure declared like this would actually show how busy and stretched MPs' lives can be.

I work for a commercial enterprise and every penny of claimed expenses has to be supported by a receipt and further justified by an explanation if questioned. I find this a burdensome but perfectly reasonable and appropriate arrangement. I am after, all spending money which ultimately belongs to shareholders in the business.

I am a shareholder in UK PLC my vote contributes to our choice of employee and my taxes pay for their remuneration and running costs. I see no reason why the need for accountability and justification should not be applied to MPs. I suggest that the administration of their expenses is contracted out to the private sector and then detailed scrutiny and reconciliation can take place.

No chance. MPs are greedy unscrupulous people and will not submit to such disciplines. The hundredth example this year of one rule for MPs and another for the the proletariat.

Finally Nick, I do not think you and your fellow lobby journalists are doing enough to convey to MPs just how much in contempt they are held by the public. We would be more comfortable relying on 650 unelected car salesman and estate agents.

How can the government members have these large, no doubt tax-exempt allowances and understand how difficult this country is for the majority of people?

Travel allowances mean they don’t understand the price of a train or bus ticket.

Food allowance means they don’t understand how expensive it can be to shop for a family

Second home allowance and probable favourable deals means they don’t understand the price of housing

No doubt their council tax is paid too

All in all, MPs will find it difficult to understand the people’s frustration at these benefits because they don’t exist in the same world we all do.

I say give them a larger salary and let them pay for everything, travel included. Let them have to budget the same way we do.

In the meantime, the people should be able to see exactly where their tax money is spent.

Surely the best way for MPs to break the popular view that they're all a bunch of self-serving crooks riding the gravy train with their snouts in the trough, is to make all their expenses and pay a matter of public scrutiny.

Furthermore, individually they should only receive the national average pay. MP's staff should be paid out of a seperate fund administered by an independant body. All rises in pay and expenses to be linked to those demanded of the public sector. This might make them a little more appreciative of the concerns of their constituents ....

I get housing benefit because I get incapacity benefit.
This covers all my rent, which is £60 a week.
However if I were to move somewhere else where the rent was higher I would rightly expect the housing benefit not to cover a larger rent.

So why do MPs get so much money, which is essentially their housing benefit, when they have a large salary as well?

And £400 for food??? that works out at about £100 a week on top of their wages, that is more than disabled people like myself get a week to spend on food, heating, lighting, tv licence, walking aids etc.

If I can live on the money I get, which is less than an MPs expense claim, why can't MPs? they could do with tightening their belts.

What do you expect from a Government that still run three subsidies pubs within the House of Parliament. And as for the receipts, we in the MoD at Whitehall just down the road have to submit or keep a record of "ALL" expenses. Why or by rights are they still sitting in the stone age and we the civil servants been doing this for years?

Oh good: let's now look forward to a raft of legislation on the durability of ink on receipts, the size of receipts, the systems in which they must be stored to meet accessibility guidelines, etc. There are already sets of accountants and party managers so let them do their jobs and, if they do not, sack them. Demanding this level of publication from people who are voted into office (they did not get there without some expression of confidence from the public)is just plain time-wasting.

I can't believe the arrogance of MPs. The fact is that the public no longer trust them to be above board when it comes to finances and expenses. It doesn't matter whether this mistrust is misplaced or not, it's there. I worked in the Civil Service for many years. My pay was set by an independent body, not by me and my fellow workers. All my expenses, down to the tiniest amount, had to be supported by receipts. I also had an annual performance review to measure my work - MPs never have to succumb to this either. The same rules should apply to MPs as to practically every other worker in the public sector. Remember, MPs salaries come out of OUR taxes. We are therefore entitled to be reassured that those taxes are well allocated.

Politics is like Poker. MPs operate in a grey area where secrecy is essential, making deals that generally benefit their constituents in a way that can't happen with transparency. This might well involve taking the right people out to lunch or whatever. Any disclosure should thus be subject to a 10 year delay rule, so the MP isn't outmaneuvered by private interests during the game itself. I'd bet a year's expenses anyone on here peddling the 'snouts in troughs' line has no direct experience of national politics.

I think that we damn well have a right to know what politicians spend tax payers money on for personal use. Every one else with a job and a salary buys their own stuff with their own money. Politicians are paid to do a job, a perk should not be a ridiculous expenses account. I view all of this 'secrecy' about their expenses sinister and makes me wonder what they are hiding. Anyone else agree?

MPs expense rules have ended up this lax because the pay is poor and its a way of compensating. While £60k a year is high compared to many it is certainly not high at all compared to what people of the calibre that we would like as MPs could earn elsewhere. We should halve the number of MPs, double the salaries and have an expenses system equivalent to the private sector. Otherwise we'll continue to pay peanuts and get monkeys.

This is ridiculously simple and I can't understand why the pundits, including you Nick Robinson, can't see it. It is EXACTLY the same as for any small company. All expenses require receipts, even for 50p. No receipt - no claim. All records of income and expenditure must be kept for a period of 5 years, during which time there may be a random audit by HMRC. Any attempt to evade or falsify records would be a criminal offence. Overall accounts would be public, but detailed records of every receipt would not. This IKEA/Harrods rubbish is just a red herring and you know it Nick.

No MPs could reasonably object to conforming to exactly the same conditions that they themselves have legislated for the rest of us.

I for one am glad that MPs have rediscovered the value of privacy, even if it is driven by pecuniary self interest. Perhaps they'll think again about the many and varied ways in which they wish the State to monitor all aspects of our private lives, from ContactPoint and NIR to ANPR and passenger manifests on public transport.

MPs forget that this is our money, not theirs, and the taxpayer has a right to ensure that the considerable privilges which go with the MPs job are not abused. There seems to be a belief amongst MPs that these sums of money are an entitlement for which there should be no need to account. They should be swiftly disabused of this notion and required to conform to the same standards as apply to the rest of us.

MPs cannot have it both ways. They vote for more and more information to be demanded from the private citizen, yet want privacy when it comes to how they spend tax payers money. The fact that they don't realise how untenable this is, suggests that they are getting dangerously arrogant.

Three points.

My perception is that all MPs are corrupt and Government MPs are absolutely corrupt. Corruption takes many forms and the most insidious is the not financial corruption, it is the corruption of power. Hubris alienates the public. Do MPs seriously believe that non-politicized members of the public believe anything they say or have any respect for them whatsoever ?

If citizens working in the private sector managed their expense accounts in the way MPs manage theirs then they would be arrested.

Given that the EU decides most of the important issues in our lives why do we need such as an expensive layer of government as Parliament ?

Nick,

To have a second home in London is a false premise that is designed to cream off more taxpayers money.

Like many other people I was often summoned into London Offices to work for periods of 2/3 years whilst continuing my permanent family home in the provinces.

My company put me in a decent Hotel paid a meal allowance covered by receipts and gave me travel at cost to my provincial home at weekends.

I didn't make money out of this but nevertheless enjoyed the career opportunities that London could offernot available in my home areas.

Having survived the Brown Pension Pogroms 1997 why should I as a pensioner pay from my taxes for these useless scoungers called MPs ?

Mps method of remuneration is a national disgrace and on a par with the worst of the 3rd World.

I'm curious. If an MP buys furniture for their apartment and claim it on expenses, who does the furniture belong to? Does the MP get to keep it or is it later sold at a government auction and the proceeds returned to the public purse.

I'm also curious. Why doesn't the government just buy or build a (modest) block of flats and let MPs use that as their second home. It could even have a restuarant in it that sold reasonably priced food.

It all sounds a bit orwellian to me. Everyone is created equal but some are more equal than others.

Shame on you Nick for suggesting ways in which MPs can avoid giving this information. Receipts should be compulsory (and made public - after all it is taxpayer funded) and the information kept for the same number of years that the Inland Revenue require the rest of us to keep receipts. I'm fed up with one law for us and a separate on for MPs.

I have no interest in what my MP spends his money on. I just want reassurance that the system is not being abused by say having an independant body scrutinising expense claims.

All of this hysteria appears to be about the media and the public wanting a stick to beat our politicians with.

Oh didums. MPs are the subject of a 'witch hunt': boo hoo. They seem not to realise that regardless of what appears on your blog, public resentment is boiling over in the wake of a Prime Minister who, along with his wife, cynically used his position to turn himself into a multi-millionaire. Mrs Thatcher and John Major also milked ex-prime ministership for every penny they could. It's not illegal; but it's distasteful. There is down and dirty corruption and then there's 'corruption' of the spirit of British politics which has long had a tradition of being its own reward. Keep up the good work, Nick.

I think MP's are spending way more of the tax payer's money than they should, they live the live's of high society people, they need to come down a step to see how it feels to be a normal citizen.

£400 a week just for food seems very unreasonable, one can dine with that kind of money in the best restaurant there is in the capital.

They should be asked for every penny they spend from our money, they should not be allowed to miss use of the air miles earned from the official trips.

Is trust within certain well defined (and somewhat limited) boundaries no longer possible?

Of course we should have a keen eye to ensure that the money available to MPs is not abused, but I'm sure we would get a better monetary return for our time investment if we rigourously analysed the budget for the 2012 Olympics (for example)

I bet their expense claims appear saintly when compared to those of an MEP.

I think we need to end this media obsession with MPs spending and allowances and let them get on with doing their jobs.

Having worked in Parliament I believe that the vast majority of MPs do a great job and use their allowances in a reasonable manner.

All this focus on money and attempts to smear certain individuals just adds to the publics distrust in politics which is bad for our democracy.

Is trust within certain well defined (and somewhat limited) boundaries no longer possible?

Of course we should have a keen eye to ensure that the money available to MPs is not abused, but I'm sure we would get a better monetary return for our time investment if we rigourously analysed the budget for the 2012 Olympics (for example)

I would really like to know which MP is claiming for food. He or she must be a really bad MP if they cannot get someone else to pay for their grub. :-)

In my opinion the problem is that we don't pay our MPs enough and they need to make up the difference with expenses.

But we can't pay them a decent wage, cause the boo boys will be along saying all the usual blah, blah, blah that you can read in other comments in this blog.

MPs are accountable at elections, if you don't think they are worth the money don't put you kiss next to their name. And if you don't think any of them are worth it, then I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot.

I'm curious. If an MP buys furniture for their apartment and claim it on expenses, who does the furniture belong to? Does the MP get to keep it or is it later sold at a government auction and the proceeds returned to the public purse.

I'm also curious. Why doesn't the government just buy or build a (modest) block of flats and let MPs use that as their second home. It could even have a restuarant in it that sold reasonably priced food.

It all sounds a bit orwellian to me. Everyone is created equal but some are more equal than others.

I feel its about time we did look at the true cost of government, I'm required to do a tax return and explain to my employer every expense I claim, why not MP's MSP MEP's & Cardiff Bay.

We might then see where all the tax we pay is spent.

I would really like to know which MP is claiming for food. He or she must be a really bad MP if they cannot get someone else to pay for their grub. :-)

In my opinion the problem is that we don't pay our MPs enough and they need to make up the difference with expenses.

But we can't pay them a decent wage, cause the boo boys will be along saying all the usual blah, blah, blah that you can read in other comments in this blog.

MPs are accountable at elections, if you don't think they are worth the money don't put you kiss next to their name. And if you don't think any of them are worth it, then I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot.

Is trust within certain well defined (and somewhat limited) boundaries no longer possible?

Of course we should have a keen eye to ensure that the money available to MPs is not abused, but I'm sure we would get a better monetary return for our time investment if we rigourously analysed the budget for the 2012 Olympics (for example)

Isn't it interesting that politicians want us to surrender every detail of our lives via such things as ID cards and DNA databases, but are utterly horrified at the thought of having to divulge any information about their own lives?

As if that were not hypocritical enough, they also want to cut benefits - at the same time as protecting their own expenses.

Can there be any better example of the principle of one law for the powerful and another for the powerless?

It's probably fair to say that doctors and MPs are both public servants who work similar hours. There is no allowance for food made to doctors despite the fact that they often have to travel a lot as part of work.

Most large companies now have very good systems for handling expenses from top executives who don't have the time to deal with it themselves. Basically, after a business trip, the executive hands over their receipts to a secretary who submits detailed claims for them. These days virtually every receipt we get, especially in the UK, is fully itemised. Any receipts that aren't itemised get dealt with in one of 2 ways, for small amounts it is just paid, for large amounts, the secretary will ask the executive what the thing was for.

If you hand over receipts on a regular basis it is neither difficult to do, nor in any way time consuming. Also, it provides for complete transparency. If MPs are worried about privacy here, they should remember the mantra that the government keeps pushing out to the populace on ID cards - you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

The 91Èȱ¬ is only paid for by the users of its services and subsequent broadcasting infrastructure. No TV, no license. In fact, without a license you can happily and legally listen to the radio, simulcast, use the iplayer or even read this website.

Asking to see Nick's expenses is no less silly than asking to see Richard Branson's as an employee of Virgin Media.

I have £2 pounds to spend on my lunch today and plan to buy an apple, a tin of soup and some crusty bread. Mp's would be hard pushed to come across a finer role model for them to all aspire to.

No one is happy with the current state of affairs. We are represented by the lowest and most contemptible set of bought men, and women, that have ever sat in our houses of government. The nation is now a byword for the derogation of it's people and their culture.

The government has now moved from representing and leading us to spying upon and bullying us. Truly we are no long subjects nor even citizens, rather we are farmed for our tax revenues as cattle are farmed for meat and milk - we have allowed and co-operated in this process and should hang our heads in shame for the betrayal of all those who sacrificed so much for us.

We need a party we can all vote for that is not part of the problem - in every constituency we should register an alternative (None Of The Above Party ?) whose only purpose is to wrest power from the current political class and rebuild democracy in the interest of the nation as a whole before disbanding itself.

Tony (#22) is spot on - the use of receipts to justify expense claims is the important element here, not the public availability of the receipts.
What the public needs is a clear explanation of the expense policies, confidence in the way that the expense claims are verified and then a breakdown by MP of the amounts claimed in each category. That would seem to give a sensible amount of valid information to the public without getting into 'nosy parker'ism.
Also, the idea that we should pay MPs more and then not allow any expenses misses the point that certain expenses are justifiable and vary for each MP - travel expenses for an MP for a Scottish constituency (say) are by definition going to be higher than a London MP, and paying them the same salary would only discourage the Scottish MP from going back to the constituency.

I for one am glad that MPs have rediscovered the value of privacy, even if it is driven by pecuniary self interest. Perhaps they'll think again about the many and varied ways in which they wish the State to monitor all aspects of our private lives, from ContactPoint and NIR to ANPR and passenger manifests on public transport.

Nick,

MPs SHOULD not be wasting their time debating things like expenses. THEY should be piblished so we can see what they're spending simple as that, and then they canm stop talking about it and get on with the proper issues.

Nick, why don't you call their bluff and publish your expenses?

Martin is a disgrace and should walk. The british public should vote who is the speaker, not the smig MPs.

Isn't the problem here that we have too many MPs? There are 435 members of the US congress versus 659 MPs. If we had fewer MPs and paid them properly, with no allowances, that would be a win all round, except for the journeymen MPs who becmae casualties

You show me your expenses, I'll publish mine. Of course, HMRC force both of ours to be 'neccesary and sufficient' for us to execute our jobs, don't they.

Don't hold back, you're undermining your position, which I wholeheartedly support!

The taxpayer is not idly accusing MPs of inappropriate behaviour. The taxpayer is surely saying "you legislators preach and enforce accountability, transparency and regulation for the taxpayer so why don't you behave to the same standards?"
On this principle, in view of the protected financial status of the 91Èȱ¬ (Government set licence fee rather than commercial value,)I feel some enthusiasm for Nick's expenses being fully transparent.

* Andrew wrote:

MPs expense rules have ended up this lax because the pay is poor and its a way of compensating. While £60k a year is high compared to many it is certainly not high at all compared to what people of the calibre that we would like as MPs could earn elsewhere.... Otherwise we'll continue to pay peanuts and get monkeys.

Truly laughable! Who are these high-calibre people? A bunch of estate agents and self-serving smart-arse lawyers. I'll bet NOT ONE of them would be qualified to hold even a junior post (

I also work for a PLC and over the years, the whole area of expenses has become tighter and tighter with receipts being needed for everything and strict rules on what can and cannot be claimed for.

The reason for this is just as mich to to do with the Inland Revenue as much a companies being well managed and probity.

What attention do these disgusting amounts attract from the Inland revenue ? None at all clearly.

So they fritter away our money and don't get taxed either- disgraceful.

I work for a living and I cant claim £400 pound a month for food when i work away!!

Is there not one ounce of morality amongst them - where is the moral compass when you need it Brown?