British crooks in office are more interesting than the home grown version

[richlevy]

I have been following the UK Parliament expenses scandal. I must say that the level of fraud and abuse is interesting even by US standards.

The latest and funniest twist is this.

A British newspaper got full financial records and began divulging the worst offenses. This has been going on for a month.

The British government finally responded by publicly releasing those same expense reports - heavily redacted. This means that expense reports which have already been made public by a newspaper are officially being released, with blacked out portions, in some cases entire pages. In addition, some of the worst offenders expenses were never released.

Not only is this closing the barn door after the horses are gone, it's painting a giant bullseye on the barn.

For example, here is a comparison between redacted and full versions.

What was revealed …

• Gordon Brown, who repaid £801.86 to the Commons authorities, and David Cameron, who repaid £947, are among 184 MPs to make repayments.

• Brown has treated mice infestations at his flat in London and his Scottish home.

• Tony Blair claimed £6,990 for roof repairs on 25 June 2007 – two days before he stepped down as prime minister and ceased to be an MP. He also claimed for six months of council tax, a month before leaving office.

• Alex Salmond, the SNP Scottish first minister, and Elfyn Llwyd, the Plaid Cymru MP, submitted what appear to be identical bills for £14,100 for legal advice on impeaching Tony Blair.

• Liam Fox, shadow defence secretary, ran up a £5,137.70 mobile phone bill between April 2007 and January 2008.

• Hugo Swire, ex-shadow cabinet minister, charged £5 for a Glynde-bourne festival opera booklet.

… and what wasn't

• Douglas Hogg, Conservative MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, charged £2,115 to have the moat cleared at his Lincolnshire estate and claimed bills for a "mole man".

• Sir Peter Viggers, Tory MP for Gosport, claimed £1,645 for a floating "duck island" in the garden of his Hampshire home as part of £32,000 of gardening expenses over three years.

• Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary, claimed £10 for two adult films which were accessed by her husband at her constituency home in Redditch.

• Labour MPs Elliot Morley and David Chaytor claimed for mortgages that had already been paid off. All addresses in yesterday's publication were blacked out, which prevented cross-referencing against the Land Registry.

BTW, one big difference between Parliament and US Congress is that you won't find 'moat cleaning' on an expense report.

BTW, you could make a case for Mr. Smith. If his wife is up late working on Parliament business, it seems only fair that Parliament pay a remedy. This is known in legal circles as 'relief', which seems appropriate.

[DanaC]

This has pretty much rocked the political system in Britain.

Most of it's pretty smallscale stuff. What's depressing is the scale of abuse as you say, in terms of the number of MPs involved.

In some ways I feel sorry for some of them. Not the Chaytors and the Morleys who appear to have committed outright fraud; but the ones who've claimed extras through the second home allowance so forth. Wardrobes and carpets. As I mentioned in another thread, this situation is directly related to a decision made about 20 or so years ago, in which the then government, against the advice of the independant wage setting body advised MPs to vote against a rise in their salary and sugar coated it with a new allowance system. After that successive govts have tacitly approved and even outright encouraged MPs to use that allowance, on the grounds that it's in lieu of wages. Much of this behind closed doors but it's an open secret and has been for two decades.

Some of them are funny though. I mean moat cleaning? and duck islands? from a party desperate to shed it's old wealthy, Eton boys, landed elite tag :p

One of them. It may have been the duckpond guy, had the audacity, in a live interview to suggest that people were angry because they were jealous of his big house.

[richlevy]

I think transparency is the key. If you have the balls to put it on an expense report viewable by the entire UK (and the world), then you deserve it.

Attempting to redact something that has been already leaked is probably the stupidest part of the whole situation.

I really feel bad for Mrs. Smith's husband. Were the adult movie titles included in the report?

[DanaC]

They preceded this big expose. I cant recall the exact circumstances. But this was a fairly embarrasing minor issue. It gained much more significance once the rest of it all started to tumble down :P

[sugarpop]

Wow. They get to claim for mice infestation and roof repairs? They don't have to pay for that stuff themselves? I wonder if people in Congress get to claim stuff like that. I would be pretty upset if they did, which, they probably do.

[DanaC]

They're only allowed to claim for 'upkeep' costs on their second home. The second home allowance is there for non-London MPs who have to shuttle between their London duties and their constituecy duties. It's supposed to ensure that non-London MPs aren't disadvantaged (and therefore their constituents properly represented) compared to the MPs whose constituencies are within commutable distance to Parliament. The alternative is MPs staying in hotels which usually works out more expensive.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The alternative is MPs staying in hotels which usually works out more expensive.

Depends on the size of the second home, doesn't it? I mean if they are getting lavish second homes, maybe they should stay in a damn hotel. What if the Gov't got a location for them all to stay in? Kinda like a hotel itself?

[DanaC]

Well. They're not actually supposed to claim for half the things they've claimed for. Basically it's supposed to off-set the additional costs they've taken on in order to fulfil their duties. That is supposed to cover, for example, the interest payments on the mortgage (not the mortgage payment itself). They are also able toclaim towards some of the upkeep of the second home. The rules are fairly vague but do cover this: basically you shouldn't, as an MP, claim for something which, when viewed by an ordinary member of the public, might not be considered reasonable. It's not worded quite like that, but that's the gist of it.

The idea of a set of apartments or somesuch made available to MPs has been mooted. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I think the idea of a publically owned facility for Mps tolive in has real merit. One problem though, and indeed part of the rationale for the 2nd home allowance, are the difficulties of being an MP whilst also having/raising a family. MPs can select to have their constituency home, or their London home classed as their 2nd home. Which opens up possibilities for parents to choose to base themselves in either with their family. This is coupled with the ending of late sittings. Before these changes, it was almost impossible for an active parent (whch usually means of the two it falls on the mother) to also be an active MP.

With a set of apartments or hotel, that flexibility would be lost and we'd take a retrograde step on the issue of female participation (possibly).

[classicman]

I'm not buyin the "female" angle. I was thinking about the housing issue over here as well. I think some reasonable housing owned or leased en masse by the Gov't would be far more economical for all instead being convenient for the few. It just makes sense. I'm sure there are security angles or some such that I haven't even considered, but on the whole it would seem like a simple solution to a couple issues.

[DanaC]

I suspect now that the late sittings have been done away with that might offset some of the difficulties. The problem used to be the need to spend several days a week, often doing late sittings into the dawn, away from home. We have very low female participation in Parliamentary politics. This does seem to have been a factor. Certainly, there are many female MPs who've come in in recent years who've stated that the late sittings were a problem for them. And berore the second homes allowance, it was an oft stated reason given by women in politics as one of the factors preventing them from standing.

[classicman]

Whats the correlation of the late sittings and sleeping in a house, suite or hotel?

[DanaC]

They were both issues considered by the committees dealing with the issue of participation, as problematic. Without the late sittings, it is now actually possible, most of the time, for an MP to travel back to their constituency the same night, after the voting is over. It didn't used to be practical. It basically opens up more possibilities in terms of commuting. Also, less necessary to have a London home so close by, can now have something a train journey away (trains wouldn't be running after voting finished; therefore many MPs slept in their office on late sitting nights.).

The difference between having a second home and having access to public owned properties, is that if they were set aside properties for Mps there wuold need to be a range of different kinds, or it wouldn't be possible for MPs to work from London and have their family (children) living with them there and enrolled in London schools. This is something quite a few of the women MPs in particular have opted to do. They then travel back and do constituency work at the weekend and during summer hols.

[classicman]

That still seems like a very viable cost effective solution - err wait - thats the problem - never mind.

[Sundae]

Trouble is, female MPs need political "wives" in the same way male MPs need them.
And they are less available.

[Flint]

Great golly wot not! Hear hear, on me knickers noggin--I shall say! Quite indeed, my good sir, INDEED I shall say!