Read all about it ....
After years of fighting demands that they should account for the public money spent on MPs expenses, the House of Commons is about to reluctantly accept defeat.
Today is the deadline for an appeal to be lodged against a ruling ordering the publication of a detailed breakdown of claims to fund and furnish the second homes of . An all party committee chaired by the Speaker has been advised that there's no legal basis for this and so they must accept the verdict of a recent Freedom of Information tribunal.
Thus we may learn - if we care to - what Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Prescott spent on everything from their mortgage to soft furnishings and how that compares with the amounts spent and the items chosen by David Cameron, George Osborne, William Hague or Sir Menzies Campbell.
More significantly, this decision will signal that the Speaker and representatives of all parties now accept that, however deep their misgivings (and they are deep), they accept that further moves to block publication are either impossible or would cause further damage to Parliament's reputation.
Today's decision will open the floodgates to demands for more information although, in theory, those floodgates could open very very slowly. The Speaker's Committee has been advised that they could drag their feet on each new request for information. The law limits the amount of time which the Commons authorities is obliged to spend compiling an answer to a Freedom of Information request.
They've been advised that in the maximum time allowed (three and a half days) the expenses of just four MPs could be produced. The law also prevents what could be seen as concerted attempts to reveal data by, for example, dozens of requests for the expenses of groups of four MPs.
Furthermore, the law allows six weeks for the Commons to respond to orders to publish whilst they decide whether to appeal. Thus, in theory, it could take 20 years until all the expenses of all MPs made it into the public domain.
However, as I reported, a couple of weeks ago, the Speaker's Committee will soon set out plans to publish all the expenses of all MPs for the past three years. This is likely to happen in October.
The one issue which has yet to be resolved is the question of whether MPs addresses can be protected even when they are not considered terrorist targets. The tribunal rejected this in the case of the 14. However, the authorities are hopeful that they can still make a case that MPs' addresses should be withheld in case they or their families become targets for attack at some future date.
Along with reforms to their system of expenses, MPs hope that their belated conversion to openness will - eventually - limit the stream of stories on what they spend on themselves and return the focus to what they do for everyone else.
I hope so too.
Update 11.55
The Freedom of Information Tribunal has just said it is giving a two day extension - until Thursday at 4pm - to the 14 leading MPs to argue against details of their expenses being released.
One more thing. Before anyone cries "hypocrite", let me draw your attention to the 91Èȱ¬'s refusal to publish my expenses. You can read their reasons in the letter sent to Guido Fawkes which is .
I hope that I have never got on my "high horse" about MPs' expenses. I am aware that there are many, many more pressing issues to cover. However, I have chronicled the attempts of MPs to deny the public information which they are now going to have to publish and to defend a system of expenses which they are now committed to reforming radically.
Incidentally, a 91Èȱ¬ request for the full expenses breakdown (as against only "second home") of six MPs and former MPs - Messrs Blair, Brown, Prescott, Howard, Kennedy and Jonathan Sayeed - passes its deadline today. We wait to see how the Commons authorities will respond. Hypocrisy-watchers may like to note that the request was made three years ago when I worked at ITN!
I'm 
Comments
This result is long overdue.
At a time when "we" the taxpayers are suffering from Brown/Darlings tax burden the speaker has the gaul to resist releasing this information.
What a lot of these people forget is that it is "we" the electorate who put them into their cushy jobs.
As for trust, the trust that the government has eroded away over the last 10 years will not return overnight.
If they (the government and speaker) think the release of this info is a good PR move then they are very mistaken.
We do't fall for this kind of move anymore.
Politicians are only human and can be as pompous and self-serving as anyone, and I this spectacle has helped blow away a few cobwebs and delusions on all sides. While more improvement may come around sometime developing a new focus isn't such a bad idea. Only so much can be done at any time and a change is as good as a rest.
Maybe it's just me, Nick, but I've noticed what looks like a change in your previous general position and tone. On issues. Before, you were quick to grab for the razzle dazzle but seem much more nuanced and laid back lately. I think, that's much more useful to politics and society in general, and makes for much easier reading.
Proper focus and balance are helpful in developing happiness. The Prime Minister's focus on creating a central point of contact for authority and encouraging people to take a more prominent lead in governing their own lives is hot stuff. He promised hope but exceeds expectations by delivering a sparkle of joy. I'm so *squeal* excited.
All hail Blessed Leader!
Unfortunately the damage to the reputation of MPs is so severe that I can't see this raising more than a few eyebrows in the media. The controls have got to stop the MPs screwing the taxpayer at the first hurdle, instead of just publishing their lavishes once they've already blown our money.
Rather find out how the heck Blair took Labour and made a Conservative party without asking me a member.
I rather see people who have gone to jail thrown out of the lords especially idiots like Archer.
The fact is I do not care anymore , I've lost interest in politic and politicians, hence for the first time in my life I shall not be voting, and as for forced to vote try it.
By the time this charade has played itself out, MP's will have awarded themselves what they wanted all along - a massive payrise which will be reflected in their massively generous 1/40th pension scheme payments, as opposed to their existing salary, plus generous expenses which aren't reflected in their pension scheme. It'll end up costing us hugely more in perpetuity than a fraudulent iPod here and a John Lewis cooker hood there.
Can't we just hang them all instead? Or halve their pay (since they've given away at least half their powers to Brussels) and make available a dormitory - even a heated one - for all politicians at Westminster to use while in London? If they want to stay in a flat or hotel, let them pay. I don't wish to.
Nick don't let cameron off the hook for his blatent dissregard of the highway code.He should be prosecuted.
The politicians give the impression that they are reluctant to make their expenses information public.
What an odd lot they are!
They defeat the commendable object of more openess and honesty by their unwillingness to implement the reforms in a satisfactory way. It makes you wonder just how much they feel they have to hide? Oink oink!
I am glad we have a mature and responsible press in this country that will not indulge in artificial outrage or prurience, but will focus on the real issues that people care about.
HA!
Since you are paid out of the public purse as well Nick, will we see your expenses published. Or are they more sacrosanct than MPs?
Nick
Agree absolutely with trying to get MP's expenses publicised. However, you are publically funded too - why can't we see your expenses?
Ab
I see you do not wish to give details of your expenses and a response from your Freedom of Information Team says: "The expenses claimed by this individual do not relate to the performance of a public function which involves spending public money or taking influential policy decisions"
If you wish to offer opinions on this subject do you not think you should reveal your expenses?
At Long Last we see some light or will we.
There is no doubt that someone will try to find a way to keep information away from us the Taxpayer who fund there very good Lifestyle.
The lame excuse that address should not be published is very lame indeed I know where both my local MP,s reside within the area they represent in West Yorkshire( ie: Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper ) by the way which is supposed to be their main home ( in which case why dont their children attend local schools ) instead of receiving Schooling in London area.
We are entitled to the Truth and the whole Truth and nothing less
"The one issue which has yet to be resolved is the question of whether MPs addresses can be protected even when they are not considered terrorist targets."
Are there not already provisions under the Data Protection Act 1998 to not allow this 'personal' information to be disclosed? Even MPs have the right to non-disclosure of that kind of information.
"Whiter then white" we were promised in May 1997 (along with "24 hours to save the health service" and other undelivered promises)
There is nothing 'New' about 'New Labour' there is only the old tax and spend with no results labour. The parliamentary process is as good as frozen because the government is run by a dead man walking. The financial markets are frozen because Brown's regulatory system failed at the first hurdle. We can't afford to pump the economy because Brown has spent all our cash and sold all our gold.
This is why the public are outraged by MPs exoenses and demanding an explanation; had they done a good job for ten years there would be less of a furore. It's the failure to deliver that has lead to slump in opinion polls and demands for greater accountability.
Like most employees, MPs try to squeeze as much as possible out of a very lax and badly monitored system. But they are " Honorable Members" expected to do the "right thing". This includes two Ministers together both claiming for a "second " home in London from which their children go to school! Unless they commute from their "main" constituency residence!
Any common sense system would cater for a modest second home , limited to the cost of a rented 2 bedroom flat with basic furniture and fittings and simple maintenance such as redecoration every 5 years. That is, what any prudent member of the electorate who may have reason to need a London pied-a-terre, would do. They would not expect to be fed at their employers expense especially if they had a 24 hour subsidised canteen.
Three cheers for Norman Baker MP who has pursued this matter for many years. (he is my MP, but I do not vote for him for other reasons)
But will Nick allow details of his expenses to be released to Guido Fawkes...
No chance
Like most employees, MPs try to squeeze as much as possible out of a very lax and badly monitored system. But they are " Honorable Members" expected to do the "right thing". This includes two Ministers together both claiming for a "second " home in London from which their children go to school! Unless they commute from their "main" constituency residence!
Any common sense system would cater for a modest second home , limited to the cost of a rented 2 bedroom flat with basic furniture and fittings and simple maintenance such as redecoration every 5 years. That is, what any prudent member of the electorate who may have reason to need a London pied-a-terre, would do. They would not expect to be fed at their employers expense especially if they had a 24 hour subsidised canteen.
Three cheers for Norman Baker MP who has pursued this matter for many years. (he is my MP, but I do not vote for him for other reasons)
This principle should be extended to all expenses incurred by people spending public money. Presumably Nick you be publishing details of your 91Èȱ¬ expenses funded by the licence fees?
"Whiter then white" we were promised in May 1997 (along with "24 hours to save the health service" and other undelivered promises)
There is nothing 'New' about 'New Labour' there is only the old tax and spend with no results labour. The parliamentary process is as good as frozen because the government is run by a dead man walking. The financial markets are frozen because Brown's regulatory system failed at the first hurdle. We can't afford to pump the economy because Brown has spent all our cash and sold all our gold.
This is why the public are outraged by MPs exoenses and demanding an explanation; had they done a good job for ten years there would be less of a furore. It's the failure to deliver that has lead to slump in opinion polls and demands for greater accountability.
Come on Nick lets have a bit more of your hard hitting questioning and probing, lets hope your not going soft on the subject of MPs expences.
Are not items for private use ie sofas, beds etc subject to benfit in kind or is this only for the plebs.
When are you going to come clean and admit that none of the current scandals about parliamentary expenses would have emerged had it not been for the questions posed by Michael Barnbrook of the BNP, who made the initial complaints against both the Tory Conway and the Labour speaker Martin?
Why does it take 8 months to press "Print" (presuming the data exists in some electronic form)
Obviously we do not at this stage know the details of the expenses of the 14 MPs, but my guess is that when details are released there will be disbelief amongst many of the electorate at what the individual MPs have claimed in the past and far from raising public respect for our politicians this will take it even further into the mire
What happens to all the purchased goods when an MP is not re-elected, should they not give them back?
"Whiter then white" we were promised in May 1997 (along with "24 hours to save the health service" and other undelivered promises)
There is nothing 'New' about 'New Labour' there is only the old tax and spend with no results labour. The parliamentary process is as good as frozen because the government is run by a dead man walking. The financial markets are frozen because Brown's regulatory system failed at the first hurdle. We can't afford to pump the economy because Brown has spent all our cash and sold all our gold.
This is why the public are outraged by MPs exoenses and demanding an explanation; had they done a good job for ten years there would be less of a furore. It's the failure to deliver that has lead to slump in opinion polls and demands for greater accountability.
Nick
However strong our desire to return to talking about politics, politicians HAVE to be held to account on this. I would be far more stringent and think we should start calling for a radical reform of politics in this country, starting with the electoral system and qualifications for people to stand as MP's and representatives. Public Service has to mean SERVICE, not some glorious self-aggrandising junket.
Some ideas:
- Archaic Westminster privileges and laws to be reformed and an independent watchdog to be set up to regulate MP's affairs including salary awards and expenses.
- Nobody to be eligible for public office until they have worked a minimum of 5 years in paid employment, outside the political sphere.
- All expenses of Parliament, its offices and MP's to be published. Costly and un-green overseas trips to meetings be replaced where possible by video-links.
- No internal flights to be taken in the UK.
- MP's to use public transport at all times and finance the cost of alternatives themselves.
- Hostel accommodation (state funded) to be provided for all MP's while attending Westminster.
- No allowances for 2nd (London) homes.
And more generally
- Some form of MP "NVQ" to be set up in Finance, Management, Environment and other disciplines which any MP has to pass before they can be considered for ministerial office. Too many MP's seem to jump from discipline to discipline without necessarily any understanding or previous experience of their new area. Somebody said the only budget Alistair Darling has ever run is the nation's .... that is staggering!
- All political parties to provide at least 40% female candidates from 2009, rising to 50% after a set period, as a measure to achieve proper representation in the House of Commons.
- Elections for the second house. Second House to always number at least 33% independent of political affiliation.
- The sex ratio in the Lords to be 50/50 by 2020.
If politicians showed they are as sick as most of the public at how out of date and unfit for 21st century purpose our current system is, they might win a lot more support.
Good - the more transparency the better. Why should they leech off us taxpaying workers who are subject to draconian tax law when trying to claim the slightest amount. My husband, who works for HP, isn't even allowed to claim for a cup of coffee unless he is driving for more than 6 hours at a stretch!
And can someone tell me what happens to the furnishings etc for second homes when an MP retires or loses his seat? Surely they belong to US, not them?
1) Most people in equally senior or responsible positions in society are paid many times more than MPs (MPs earn £61,820). For example, many local authority chief executives earn more well over £150,000 - more than the Prime Minister).
2) Many young graduates at the age of 21 earn nearly as much as an MP. For example, new recruits to management consultancies or City finance /law firms often start on over £50,000 at the age of 21.
3) In a spirit of fairness, all those who are paid from the public purse (or the licence fee) should open up their expense accounts to full public scrutuny and exposure. The salary levels of all such individuals should also be made public.
4) In the event that the above occurs and we see how much 91Èȱ¬ journalists and executives are paid, how much they claim on expenses and how much free international travel and hotel bills they rack up, I believe that the public would not view MPs as quite the money-grabbers that much of the media, however subtly, is portraying them to be.
Very interesting post, Nick.
When can I look forward to a post on your blog, detailing your own expense claims, which are paid for out of my licence fee?
1) Most people in equally senior or responsible positions in society are paid many times more than MPs (MPs earn £61,820). For example, many local authority chief executives earn well over £150,000 - more than the Prime Minister.
2) Many young graduates at the age of 21 earn nearly as much as an MP. For example, new recruits to management consultancies or City finance / law firms often start on over £50,000 at the age of 21.
3) In a spirit of fairness, all those who are paid from the public purse (or the licence fee) should open up their expense accounts to full public scrutiny and exposure. The salary levels of all such individuals should also be made public.
4) In the event that the above occurs and we see how much 91Èȱ¬ journalists and executives are paid, how much they claim on expenses and how much free international travel they enjoy, I believe that the public would not view MPs as quite the money-grabbers that much of the media, however subtly, is portraying them to be.
Now we know why people leave professions in which they have trained for years to qualify to become an MP .They are virtually given an open cheque book to riches.Two hundred and fifty pounds a time without receipts is quite extraudinary and is a perk which ordinary citizens find hard to come to terms with.Thank goodness this drain on public money has finally come to light and the people responsible will have to face the consequences. Maybe now the tax payers will be given a fair crack of the whip instead of funding this unjust practice.
I think you are wrong Nick.
The 20 years estimate surely applies where only one person or organisation is asking for the MPs' expenses.
If we all asked for the details of up to four MPs they would have no basis on which to refuse. Therefore it would only take 150 people 20 working days (in theory!). I'm sure several requests have gone in already from local opposition parties and other interested people.
If an MP uses the housing allowance to fund the mortgage payments on a London property and the value of the property increases does the MP keep 100% of the capital gain? Should the public not share the equity? If an MP funds an expensive property by use of public money does the MP elect which home to claim any CGT exemptions on? ie the high value/gain one.
If MPs' home addresses are published, please can I have the home addresses of all political editors and correspondents, as I'd like to be able to tackle them about their coverage at any time of day or night - or my GP, or solicitor, or how about the local supermarket manager, in case I have a complaint about a product? But I probably can't have those, as it would be inviting harassment and possibly threats to families - it's a stalkers' charter. Come on, be fair, MPs are allowed some time out like the rest of us - or do journalists not want any decent real people with families and "hinterland" ever to volunteer for the role in the future? I don't know why everyone thinks MPs are just having fun at taxpayers' expense - you could never pay me enough to make me want to take on the burden that is this thankless role when done properly, i.e. serving constituents and spending time solving their problems with public authorities, which is what most MPs do, at least in our inner cities.
#26
While I agree with most recomendations mentioned and I feel more should be done in the media on how all these dissinfranchised people making comments could enter into the political arena and investigate the shadowy procedure of how MP's are selected to stand for seats. I must object to the quota's based on sex.
I want the best polititian for my area, not the best female polititian because the quota of male MP's has been used up.
I would love to enter into politics but as I'm in a safe seat with an all female shortlist I know I could never represent my local area.
Nick, I think it's right that you take politicians to task, but hiding behind the 91Èȱ¬'s limp-wristed reply to the FOI request makes it look like you've got something to hide as well. Given that a tax as unavoidable as income tax pays your salary, I think you should come clean about your own expenses.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you ARE just a hypocrite.
Some great commments there, Nigel. One thing I'd like to see is mroe harmonisation between politicans, authorities, and business in general. That may mean some slack here and tightening up there but the expectations and rewards across the depth and range of endevour is nuts. It's just too confusing and unfair to everyone.
Clare's got another great point to make. Scrutiny and accountability is useful but too much information and openess can get in the way and be harmful. Again, the issue is a great big pile off poo. If parliament can get a better grip on that I'd be happier.
It's reasons like this that I think the Prime Minister is the best man for the job. His personality type is exactly the same as the great systems designers of history, like Stephenson and Brunel. If anyone can sort it, Gordon can. What, do think I'd trust you lot? Pffaw.
All hail Blessed Leader!
I just want to make a point about Nick Robinson's expenses which is blatantly missed by all those braying for their release. MPs have been caught with their snouts in the trough. The expenses system has been shown to be outrageously generous, bordering on the corrupt. This is why the media is shouting for MP's expenses to be published. No-one has claimed the same to be true of 91Èȱ¬ expenses. In fact, because 91Èȱ¬ expense levels are not enshrined in law, but have to be budgeted from a limited pool with competing requirement, I have little doubt that they are reasonable. Until someone shows me otherwise, I will not be braying for Nick Robinson to publicise his expenses, nor will I be making false claims about double standards.
Is there any suggestion that 91Èȱ¬ employees have been allowed to claim for plasma screens, second homes, carpets and god alone knows what else on expenses? Have 91Èȱ¬ journalists been found to be paying their children as "researchers" while the child is at university? No.
And I think this is an important issue. Possibly the most important in politics. It's about the honesty and hypocrisy of the people who lord it over us. The people who want us to be locked up or fined for the slightest transgression (and to abolish all those silly (in their view) rights which make it difficult for them to do this) while they live the high life with their snouts in the public trough and whine on about their rights being breached at any suggestion we tax payers deserve to be told just what we're paying for. It is the politicians who act like this, not the media who reveal it, who
are responsible for the public lack of trust in politicians.
I'm amazed by this board. It must be frequented by the last 12 people in the country who think that MPs (of any party) act honsetly and in good faith.
As for Nick's expenses I could not care less. He may work for a public body - the 91Èȱ¬ - but he does not govern this country, make it's laws or attempt to pass himself off as an uncorrupt person who leads by example.
Now then, moving on to the fraudulent vermin - sorry, I meant Honourable Members. The problem with their claims and allowances system is that it's based on an honour code. That is a major design flaw.
MP, Parliament, Government etc are as every right-minded citizen knows, entirely incompatable with the word 'honour'.
If this lot seem so reluctant to publish their accounts they might be wishing that they hadn't been so generous to themselves in the past.
Possibly the time has come for them all to be swept away and a clean start with a "White" party looking after the interest of the taxpayers.
Dave and Richard have hit the nail on the head. No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting that expenses of 91Èȱ¬ employees are in anything like the same league as the blatant misuse by Mps which has now been exposed.
Their hypocrisy is breathtaking - they need to be reminded in no uncertain terms that THEY work for US, and therefore we are perfectly entitled to be sure that we are getting value for money...
Another (somewhat related) matter which I think needs investigating, is the extraordinary proliferation of 'ministers' under this government - all of which attract a basic salary of £100000. There is a Post Minister; a Public Health Minister; a Schools Minister; a Higher Eduction Minister -etc, etc. Any time soon I expect there to be a Minister for Silly Walks...
Is this not simply a way of boosting MPs salaries by the back door..?
The whole system of allowable expenses for MP's needs an urgent overhaul, as does the ability that they alone of those paid from the public purse have to determine their own pay and pension scales. Why exactly do so many MP's need a second home in London anyway? Many live closer to the city than thousands of "ordinary" people with London jobs, including those on long and unsocial hours; why should MP's alone be allowed to escape the unpleasant commute in crowded, dirty, expensive public transport? Those who genuinely do live too far away should be provided hostel accommodation when in London from which they cannot make a profit at my expense. I am tired to the point of nausea with politicians regarding themselves as a privileged elite, and awarding themselves perks accordingly. Just how they can claim to be aware of the hardships faced by their electorates when they are so cocooned from the harsh realities of today's life by outdated prerogatives that should have been swept away in a modern democracy is a question they should be forced by us to answer.
The second-home perk is simply a scam which, given the rise in London property prices over the years, is another nice little nest egg for MP's to add to their already gold-plated pension scheme, all paid for by the over-burdened taxpayer. There may well be some principled members in the House, but for most, winning a seat on the Westminster benches really is like winning the lottery of life, and rather than messing around with ineffectual reform of the Upper House, we should insist that root and branch reform is first forced upon the anachronistic Lower House. Time for the members to realise that we are tired of funding a privileged social club, and want value for money from those who fight tooth and claw to resist changes that would bring them into line with the real world that the rest of us are forced to inhabit. It was Marie Antoinette who is supposed to have said "let them eat cake" when told of the hardship faced by ordinary people, and look what happened to her!
I see that the Commons have YET AGAIN tried to block this matter, on two counts - one of which is that the address of their second home may become public knowledge. Well - I'm sure this could be kept secret if its such an issue. As regards the second matter - that we might find out too many of their personal details - tough. How does it go - if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen..
Mr Pot - There's a Mr. Kettle on Line 3 who would like a word with you.
I'm afraid your rather feeble justification for your reticence does you no credit.
It's interesting that no-one comments on the cost to the taxpayer of answering all these Freedom of Information requests about expenses - the overheads of processing these requests, finding the data, checking it can be released and its accuracy and sending it out must be high.
I for one would rather have a hard-working MP who engages with the issues of their constituency and of national interest than one running around their office trying to find a receipt for an armchair. Having seen my local MPs offices/operation it's more Save the Children cake sale on a shoe-string than Capitol Hill gravy train. Come on guys lets give our MPs a break.
I am not too worried about how much the property costs to purchase and maintain, it is the fact that, when they are booted out, they get to keep it that annoys me.
It's about time the government built a block of flats, very comfortable is OK, and put MPs in them, rent free. There should be no private housing payed for by the tax payer, the proceeds of which become a nice little earner on retirement/loss of seat.
Nick,
The MPs will never ever win this argument in the Courts, even at the taxpayers unlimited expense and that hurts.
Now this matter is about putting more time between themselves, their indiginous greed and the demands of the public to have these excesses treated as individual tax avoidance issues.
Time for a new start here with the Inland Revenue, the Police and the Criminal Courts taking some interest on behalf of the taxpaying public.
'No taxation without honest representation', or something like that !