Longwoods Blog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal)

See also: Salaries of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

The Palace of Westminster

The United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal was a major political scandal triggered by the leak[1] and subsequent publication by the Telegraph Group in 2009 of expense claims made by members of the United KingdomParliament over several years. Public outrage was caused by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expensesclaimed by Members of Parliament (MPs), following failed attempts by parliament to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation. The scandal aroused widespread anger among the UK public against MPs and a loss of confidence in politics. It resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Several members or former members of the House of Commons, and members of the House of Lords, were prosecuted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The scandal also created pressure for political reform extending well beyond the issue of expenses and led to the Parliament elected in 2005 being referred to as the ‘Rotten Parliament’.[2][3][4]

In the United Kingdom MPs can claim expenses, including the cost of accommodation, “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member’s parliamentary duties”.[5] A February 2008 Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs’ expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal. The House of Commons Authorities challenged the decision on the grounds that it was “unlawfully intrusive”.[6] In May 2008, the High Court (England and Wales) ruled in favour of releasing the details of MPs’ expenses claims.[7][8] In April 2009 the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed “sensitive” removed,[9] would be made in July 2009.[10]

However before this could take place, a full uncensored copy of the expenses records and documentation was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details in daily instalments from 8 May 2009. These disclosures dominated the British media for weeks, with the findings being considered to show flagrant and sometimes gross misuse of the expenses system for personal gain by many MPs (including Government and shadow cabinet ministers) across all parties.

On 18 June 2009 the details of all MPs’ expenses and allowance claims that were approved during the period 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website. However items of detail such as addresses were redacted, and the publication excluded claims that were not approved for payment by the Commons authorities as well as any correspondence between MPs and the parliamentary fees office. These omissions resulted in further accusations of unnecessary secrecy,[11][12] and widespread assertions that the most serious abuses would not have come to light had the censored documentation been the only information available.[9] Details of voluntary repayments by MPs amounting to almost £500,000 were also officially published.[13]

A panel was established to investigate all claims relating to the second homes allowance between 2004 and 2008. Headed by former civil servant Sir Thomas Legg, the panel published its findings on 12 October as MPs returned to Westminster following the summer recess. Each MP received a letter stating whether or not he or she would be required to repay any expenses claimed.

It was announced on 5 February 2010 that criminal charges would be prosecuted against LabourMPs Elliot MorleyDavid Chaytor and Jim Devine, and Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield in relation to false accounting.[14] On 11 March all four announced they would plead not guilty to charges of false accounting.[15] Potential cases against other unnamed MPs and Lords are still being considered by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service as of December 2010.

The Crown Prosecution Service announced on 19 May 2010 that Labour MP Eric Illsley would be charged with three counts of false accounting; he was also suspended from the Labour Party. It was revealed Lord Taylor of Warwick, a Conservative peer, had been charged with six counts of false accounting. On 13 October 2010 it was announced that former Labour MP Margaret Moran would also be charged with false accounting, while on 14 October 2010 former Minister of State for Europeand Labour MP Denis MacShane was referred to the Police following a complaint from the British National Party, as a consequence of which he was also suspended from the Labour Party.

Three Labour Peers were suspended on 18 October 2010 due to their expenses claims: Lord Bhatiawas suspended from the House of Lords for eight months and told to repay £27,446; Lord Paulsuspended from the House of Lords for four months and ordered to pay back £41,982 andBaroness Uddin faces a police investigation for alleged fraud for claiming at least £180,000 in expenses by designating an empty flat, and previously an allegedly non existent property as her main residence. She was suspended from the House of Lords until the end of 2012 and required to repay £125,349.

On 3 December 2010 David Chaytor pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting in relation to parliamentary expenses claims and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in early 2011.[16]

[edit]Background and legal proceedings

Heather Brooke in May 2012

In January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force, allowing members of the public to request disclosure of information from public bodies. Two early requests came from the journalists Ben Leapman and Jon Ungoed-Thomas. Another request came from journalist and freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke. All three asked for details of the expenses claimed by certain MPs to be released.[17] The requests were subsequently passed over to theInformation Commissioner, who joined the three journalists’ cases together and ordered the release of some information on 15 June 2007.[18] House of Commons authorities objected to this order in June 2007 and MPs had, in May 2007, voted in favour of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill which sought to exempt MPs from the 2000 act. The House of Commons voted 96 to 25 in favour of the Exemption of the House of Commons amendment[19] but the bill was ultimately withdrawn prior to second reading in the House of Lords because peers were unwilling to sponsor the bill.[20][21]

In February 2008, after referral to an Information Tribunal, it was held that Commons authorities would release information on 14 MPs.[22] This decision was subsequently appealed against, delaying the release of information.[23][24]

In the tax year 2007–2008, MPs’ costs of staying away from their main homes was limited to £23,083.[25]

In January 2009, Harriet HarmanLeader of the House of Commonstabled a motion which would exempt MPs’ expenses from being disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, in order to prevent any further disclosure of information.[26] Labour MPs were placed under a three line whip in order to force the motion through the Commons. However, opposition parties stated they would vote against the proposals, and large scale public opposition emerged. The proposals were ultimately dropped on 21 January 2009. The Commons authorities announced that full disclosure of all MPs’ expenses would be published on 1 July 2009.[21]

Ultimately the media disclosure made the legal appeal moot; the appeal was finally heard at the High Court, which ruled on 16 May 2008 in favour of releasing the information.[7] No appeal was lodged against the High Court ruling, and the requested details were made public on 23 May 2008.[27]

[edit]Pre-publication controversies

Main article: List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

Prior to The Daily Telegraph’s revelations in May and June 2009 and the official publication of expenses claims in June 2009, and during the Freedom of Information cases, there were a variety of exposés that covered the controversial John Lewis List (a list considered to indicate amounts that could be claimed without question) and individual MPs’ expenses claims.[21] Examples of items publicised prior to the May 2009 disclosures included:

  • Tony Blair‘s expenses were shredded ‘by mistake’ when they were the subject of a legal bid to have them published.[28]
  • Conservative Derek Conway was alleged in May 2007 to have employed and paid his son, a student at the time. The matter was forwarded to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, whose report dated 28 January 2008 concluded there was no record of such work. Conway was suspended for 10 days and ordered to repay £13,000.[29] Conway was also expelled from the party. A second case a year later found he had done the same with regard to his other son.[30]
  • Chairman of the Conservative Party Caroline Spelman was alleged in June 2008 to have paid for her nanny out of parliamentary expenses during her early years in Parliament, between 1997 and 1998[31]—an allegation that became known as “Nannygate”. It was ruled that she had inadvertently “misapplied part of [her] parliamentary allowances”, but calls for her sacking were rebutted since she might not have been aware of the rules governing the use or purpose of parliamentary allowances. The committee recommended that Spelman repay £9,600.[32]
  • Married couple and Labour Cabinet ministers Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were accused in September 2007 of exploiting the Commons’ allowances system in order to pay for a £655,000 house in London.[33] The complaint, centring on the gain made by allocation of their “second house”, was dismissed since it was held the couple had acted in accordance with parliamentary rules.[34]
  • Married Conservative MPs Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton were accused in June 2008 of claiming back mortgage interest on a mortgage they had fully repaid, on a flat they owned in London, and then also placing the flat in trust and claiming for the rent on it.[35] It was held there had been a clear breach of the rules, but no repayment was ordered.[36]
  • Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was stated to have claimed for her main home by designating it as a second home, while identifying as her main home a location she spent as little as 2 days a week, and despite also having access to a “grace and favour” home in Westminster. No investigation was held, however, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating there was “not sufficient evidence for an inquiry”.[37] A string of further claims came to light in 2009, including various domestic items[38] and a claim for two pornographic films viewed by her husband Richard Timney.[39]
  • Labour minister Tony McNulty admitted claiming expenses for a second home in Harrow, 8 miles from his main home in Hammersmith, and asserted they were appropriate, but ceased claiming the allowances.[40] Under continuing pressure, he apologised to the House for expenses abuses on 29 October 2009.
  • Conservative MP Eric Pickles likewise was identified as claiming for a second home 37 miles from his main home.[41]

[edit]Information disclosed by The Daily Telegraph

In May 2009, two months prior to the official disclosure of full expenses claims, The Daily Telegraphobtained a full copy of all expenses claims. The Telegraph began publishing, in instalments from 8 May 2009, certain MPs’ expenses.[42] The Telegraph justified the publication of the information because it contended that the official information due to be released would have omitted key information about re-designating of second-home nominations.[43]

The information in the leaks published by The Daily Telegraph originated from the parliamentary fees office, and had been offered to other newspaper organisations for more than £150,000.[44][45]In September 2009, the assistant editor of the TelegraphAndrew Pierce, revealed in an interview that the newspaper had paid £110,000 for the information, and described it as “money well spent in the public interest”. The Times and The Sun had turned down an offer to buy the leaked expenses file.[46]

Shortly after the publication of the information, the House of Commons authorities asked theMetropolitan Police to investigate, a request that the Metropolitan Police declined, on the grounds that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.[43][47]

[edit]Areas of abuse

Alongside specific allegations of incorrect claims such as claims for the cost of mortgages which it transpired had already been repaid in full[48] the Telegraph alleged[49][50][51] that parliamentary “Green Book” expenses rules[52] gave wide scope for a number of abuses, especially those related to costs of maintaining two residences, one in the constituency and one in London. Areas of questionable claims highlighted by the Telegraph included (but were not limited to):

  • Nominating second homes: The Green Book states that “the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact”. MPs and peers were able to ensure that their second home was the one which enabled them to claim more expenses.[53][54][55] In at least one case (Margaret Moran) the nominated home was near neither constituency nor Westminster.[56]
  • Re-designating second homes: MPs were able repeatedly to switch the designation of their second home, enabling them to claim for purchasing (e.g. Stamp Duty), renovating and furnishing more than one property.[57] This practice became widely-known as “flipping”.[58]
  • Renting out homes: MPs were able to claim for their “second home” while they were, in fact, renting other homes out. In most cases the rented homes were ‘third’ properties,[59][60] but in Elliott Morley’s case, a second home was rented to another MP, Ian Cawsey who was claiming the rent on expenses.[61]
  • Over-claiming for council tax on second home: MPs were able to round up actual amounts due, claiming for 12 monthly instalments where only 10 were due or by claiming up to £250.00 per month with no receipt required until those rules were changed. Over 50 MPs were alleged to have over-claimed council tax.[62]
  • Subsidising property development: The Green Book rule that MPs could not claim for repairs “beyond making good dilapidations” was not enforced and consequently MPs were able to add significantly to the value of a property.[63][64] By implication some “second homes” were effectively businesses (not homes) since they were renovated on expenses and then rapidly sold.[65]
  • Evading tax and inappropriate attempts at avoiding tax: MPs either evaded tax, or inappropriately deemed themselves not required to pay tax on reimbursements when it was likely tax was due. This covered two areas:
    • Capital gains tax: MPs were able to designate a property as their second home with the parliamentary fees office so as to claim the cost of renovating it on expenses, but a number of MPs had concurrently described a property as their second home to claim expenses, and to the UK tax authority HM Revenue and Customs as their primary residence in order to sell it without capital gains tax.[66] Some also designated a property as a primary or secondary residence for tax or expenses benefits which was apparently little if at all used by them in that role.
    • Income tax: A number of MPs were criticised for non-payment of income tax for benefits in kind or for reimbursed expenses considered under UK tax law to be of a personal nature. As of 31 May 2009, some 40 MPs had been identified as claiming for personal expenses such as preparation of their tax returns, despite UK tax law and ministerial guidance both of which had stated such expenses were not claimable for tax purposes;[67] of those claiming, only a minority paid tax on the benefit in kind.
  • Claiming expenses while living in grace and favour homes: Ministers with “grace and favour” homes in Westminster as well as their existing primary residence were able to claim for a further “second home” in addition.[68]
  • Renovating and furnishing properties when standing down: MPs were able to claim for renovations and furniture even when they had already announced their intention to resign from Parliament.[69][70]
  • Furnishing of other homes: MPs were able to claim for items of furniture that were actually delivered somewhere other than their second home.[71][72][73]
  • Exploiting the ‘no receipt’ rule: MPs submitted a large number of claims for just below £250, the ceiling under which they were not required to produce receipts, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.[74][75]
  • Over-claiming for food: Under a rule permitting up to £400 for food each month (without receipts), MPs were simply able to claim the whole £400 every month, even when Parliament was not sitting.[76]
  • Overspending at the end of the financial year: MPs were able to submit claims just before the end of the financial year, so as to use up allowances, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.[77][78]

[edit]Specific claims

Main article: List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

The Telegraph firstly revealed expenses of the governing Labour Party, beginning with the Cabineton 8 May 2009, before releasing details of the claims by junior ministers and Labour backbenchers. Further allegations were made on 14 May.

On 11 and 12 May, publication focused on the frontbench of the Conservative Party.[79] followed by the claims of backbench Conservative MPs whom the newspaper dubbed “the grandees” of the party.[80] On 12 May, the Leader of the OppositionDavid Cameron, announced that all questionable claims by the Shadow Cabinet would be repaid.[81]

The Liberal Democrats expenses were revealed last of the three main parties.[82] followed by Sinn Féin members’ claims in which it was reported that the five Sinn Féin MPs together had claimed nearly £500,000 in second home allowances, despite never taking up their seats at Westminster due to the party’s abstentionist policy.[83][84] Sinn Féin stated that its members often have to travel to London on parliamentary business.[84]

The claims published by The Daily Telegraph ultimately covered the entire gamut of Parliament—all major parties and several minor ones, ministers (including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, theChancellor, cabinet and shadow cabinet members) through to backbenchers, and members of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. A number of members were expelled from their parties, or would not stand for re-election; some members repaid, in part or whole, sums they had previously claimed. Expenses claims to be repaid averaged £3,000[85] with the highest repayment being £42,458.21 by Barbara Follett.[86] There were also payments to the UK tax authority for taxes on possible gains or income previously not paid.[87]

[edit]Source of information

Former SAS officer Major John Wick, the owner of a London based risk managementcompany[88][89] has been named as the middle-man for an unnamed whistleblower; he has spoken of the need to bring the information he had been given into the public domain.[90] Wick stated that:

The person on the end of the line told me he had a hard drive which contained details of every MP’s expense claims over the past four years. Every receipt, every claim and every piece of correspondence between MPs and fees office staff was detailed—some four million separate pieces of information […] those directly involved in processing the raw data were shocked and appalled by what they were seeing.[89]

I was also being told that critical information—particularly the removal of addresses from the files—would lead to many of the scams never being publicly exposed. The ultimate source was adamant that the key thing was that both the information and the way in which it was handled should be in the public domain and that its release was in the public interest […] I was assured that the data was not stolen but that it was an unregistered copy that had been produced as a result of the lax and unprofessional security procedures.[89]

Wick went on to explain that following legal advice and review, and soul searching over loyalties, he had felt the matter was of sufficient concern to merit publication in a “serious newspaper”, and following discussions with a number of papers, the Telegraph had been granted exclusive access to study the material for 10 days from 30 April 2009.[89]

There is an unresolved issue with the data itself, with different numbers being cited by different sources. The Telegraph stated that 4 million pieces of information existed; The Guardian states there were 2 million (“two million documents in all, including copies of expense claim forms, handwritten comments scrawled in margins, even attached sticky notes”).[91]

[edit]Media handling

In May 2009, major national newspapers such as The Times described the resulting controversy as “Parliament’s darkest day”[92] and a “full blown political crisis”,[93] reporting upon cross-party firings and resignations, an exodus of shamed MPs,[92] the prospect of criminal[94] and tax evasion[95][96][97] charges, and a motion of no confidence being prepared against the Speaker.[98]

Public interest in the expenses debate led to the 14 May 2009 edition of the BBC political and current affairs television programme Question Time recording its highest viewing figures in its 30 year run, of 3.8 million, with audience members heckling guest panellist Margaret Beckett. This figure was a million more than usual, and surpassed the figure of 3.4 million recorded in 2003 just as the coalition declared war on Iraq.[99][100] The following week’s edition on 21 May was brought forward for a special edition into the prime time slot of 9 pm BST.

Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP, criticised the Telegraph’s handling, which she described as “picking off a few MPs each day, emailing at noon, giving five hours to reply, recording the conversation, not allowing them to speak, telling them they are going to publish anyway”.[101] She stated that the stress felt by some MPs was akin to “torture“. Her comment was rejected by senior Conservatives. (See also Effect on MPs and on the political structure below)

[edit]Impact

A widespread public reaction was heightened as a result of several factors: the incident broke in the face of an economic recession and financial crisis, under an already unpopular government,[102][103]only weeks before the 2009 European Parliament elections.

[edit]Political response

Following the publication of expenses politicians from all parties responded to the controversy.

  • Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, during a speech to the Royal College of NursingConference on 11 May, apologised “on behalf of all politicians” for the expenses claims that had been made.[104]
  • David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, said that all MPs should apologise for the expenses scandal, shortly after the Telegraph published the claims of members of the Shadow Cabinet. Cameron also admitted that the existing system “was wrong and we’re sorry about it”.[105] The following day, 12 May, Cameron said that some of the claims made were “unethical and wrong”, and imposed new rules on what Conservative MPs could claim for in the future.[81]
  • Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker made a statement to MPs on 11 May, the first sitting of the Commons since the Daily Telegraph began publishing specific details of individual claims. Martin said that “serious change” was required in the future and that, in the present, MPs should not just work within the rules, an explanation that many accused MPs had given in their defence, but rather in “the spirit of what is right”. The Speaker also announced that a new ‘Operational Assurance Unit’ would be set up to independently oversee all claims, and that the House of Commons Commission would meet that evening to discuss whether or not to bring forward the official expenses publication date from 1 July.[106]
    • In the aftermath of the Speaker’s statement to MPs, questions were widely raised regarding Martin’s future in the job,[106][107] largely due to his focusing on the actual leak of information, rather than the expenses themselves, and due to his response to the point of order raised by the Labour MP Kate Hoey, who suggested that the Speaker and Commons’ decision to call in the police was “an awful waste of resources”.[108] A Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, subsequently announced that he planned to table a motion of no confidence in the Speaker, if he could garner sufficient support.[109]
  • Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, asked Don Touhig, the Chairman of the Members’ Allowance Committee, to devise a method for MPs to repay any excessive expenses.[110]
  • Ben BradshawMinister of State in the Department of Health, raised the spectre of MPs being sent to prison for abusing the expenses system.[111]
  • William HagueShadow Foreign Secretary and a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet (Deputy to party leader David Cameron), also suggested that a number of MPs may face criminal prosecution after details of their claims were disclosed.[111]
  • Lord Tebbit, a Eurosceptic and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, urged voters to snub the main three political parties in the upcoming EU Parliament election. Tebbit, who in March 2009 revealed that he would vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), said “Local elections, the Great British public should just treat as normal” but suggested using the European election to send a message to the implicated parties. Tebbit pointed out that there were a series of smaller parties people could vote for in addition to UKIP, including the Green Party, but he urged against voting for the British National Party.[112]
  • Lord Foulkes, when being interviewed for BBC News by Carrie Gracie to defend Michael Martin, asked Gracie how much money she earned. When she said she earned £92,000, Foulkes said: “£92,000? So you’re paid nearly twice as much as an MP to come on and talk this nonsense.” Gracie defended herself by saying that she paid for all of her phone calls and “understood what public sector money is about”.[113]
  • Anthony Steen, Conservative MP for Totnes, told BBC Radio 4‘s The World at One[114] that he ‘didn’t see what all the fuss is about,’ and suggested that the public were ‘jealous’ of his house that he compared to Balmoral Castle, the Royal residence. David Cameron, Conservative party leader, disapproved strongly of his statement, saying, ‘One more squeak like that and he will have the whip taken away from him so fast his feet won’t touch the ground.’.[115]

[edit]Resignations and disciplinary action

[edit]Resignation of the Speaker

The resignation of Michael MartinSpeaker of the House of Commons, followed after he was pressured to step down for approving the allowances system that MPs have manipulated with questionable claims of expenses. The pressure and viable threats of a proposed vote of no confidence in Martin ultimately forced his resignation.[116] Michael Martin’s response to the handling of the expense crisis was not well received by the majority of the House. He attacked MPs in Parliament who defended The Daily Telegraph for publishing details of expenses and allowances. Martin then concluded his part in the debate over how to handle the expense scandal, by announcing that the Commons clerk had referred the matter of the leaked information to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Overall, Martin appeared to be more concerned with the nature of the leak of the information, which led to The Daily Telegraph’s publishing details of MPs expenses and allowances, rather than offering an anticipated apology or explanation. The majority of the MPs felt Martin’s defensive approach and attacks on various MPs as whistleblowers and the backbenchers was a clear indication that Martin was no longer able to lead the House with the required impartiality. MPs from his own majority party, Labour, and the minority opposition party, the Conservatives, felt he had lost the confidence of the public and the House in general.[117][118][119] Martin was the first Speaker to be forced out of the office by a motion of no confidence since John Trevor in 1695.[120]Despite apologising to the public on behalf of the House of Commons on 18 May,[121] Michael Martin announced his resignation as Speaker of the House of Commons and as Member of Parliament for Glasgow North East the following day, both effective 21 June.[122]

[edit]Cabinet and Ministerial resignations

[edit]Labour backbenchers

The Labour Party formed a three-person panel of its National Executive Committee (NEC) in order to investigate some of its MPs who were referred to it over expenses allegations, which quickly became known as the “Star Chamber” (a reference to the court of the same name employed byEnglish monarchs to dispense summary justice in the 16th and 17th centuries).[129][130] Individual cases (in alphabetical order) include:

  • Ben Chapman announced on 21 May 2009 that he would stand down at the next election, while maintaining that he had done nothing wrong; he said he would resign because the story in theDaily Telegraph had been hurtful to his family, friends and local party members. He was the first Labour MP who announced he would stand down.[131]
  • David Chaytor announced that he would not stand for re-election,[132] and was also barred from standing for Labour at the next general election.[133] Charged with three alleged offences under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (“false accounting”),[134][135] on 3 December 2010 he pleaded guilty to claiming rent for a house he in fact owned, using a fake tenancy agreement with his daughter. He was sentenced on 7 January 2011 to an 18 month jail sentence.[16] His sentence may have been more lenient than the maximum seven years because of his guilty plea.[136]
  • Harry Cohen announced he would not stand for re-election. He said the strain caused by the criticism over his expenses, and the formal investigation into his claims, were the main factors behind his departure.[137]
  • Jim Devine was deselected on 16 June following a disciplinary hearing by the Labour party “star chamber”.[133][138] He has been charged with two alleged offences under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (“false accounting”).[134][135] He was duly convicted of two charges of false accounting and on 31 March 2011 was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment[139][140]
  • Ian Gibson was also barred from representing Labour at the next general election. He was said to be “deeply disappointed”.[133] On 5 June, Gibson announced his resignation as an MP, forcing a by-election to be held in his Norwich North constituency on 23 July 2009, which Labour went on to lose to the Conservatives.[141]
  • Margaret Moran decided not to contest the next election,[142] and has also been barred from standing for Labour at the next general election.[133] On 13 October 2010, the Telegraph reported that Moran would be prosecuted over her expenses.[143] In 2012, Moran was declared unfit to stand trial due her mental health, which was profoundly affected by the scandal.
  • Elliot Morley announced on 29 May that he would not stand for re-election,[144] and has also been barred from standing for Labour at the next general election by the NEC’s “star chamber”.[133] He has been charged with two alleged offences under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (“false accounting”).[134][135]

[edit]Conservatives

  • On 14 May, Andrew MacKay, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, resigned as parliamentary aide to David Cameron over what he described as “unacceptable” expenses claims made by him. Subsequently he decided to stand down at the next Bracknell parliamentary election.[145] His wife, Julie Kirkbride who represents Bromsgrove, decided on 28 May 2009 that she too would not stand at the next general election.[146]
  • Douglas Hogg announced on 19 May that he would retire from Parliament at the next general election.[147]
  • Anthony Steen announced on 20 May that he would retire from Parliament at the next general election.[148]
  • Sir Peter Viggers announced on 20 May that he would retire from Parliament at the next general election.[149]
  • Husband and wife Conservative backbenchers Sir Nicholas and Lady Ann Wintertonannounced their intention to stand down at the next election.[150]
  • Christopher Fraser stated he would stand down to “care for his ill wife”.[151]
  • Ian Taylor announced he would retire at the next general election. He had been claiming the maximum allowed for a second home allowance for a London home for four years between 2003 and 2008, even though his main residence was in Guildford—40 minutes from Westminister.[152]

[edit]Peers

  • Amir Bhatia, Baron Bhatia has been suspended from the House of Lords for eight months and told to repay £27,446
  • Lord Hanningfield has been charged with two alleged offences under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (“false accounting”).[134][135] He stepped down from his frontbench role on learning of the charges on 5 February 2010.[153] On 26 May 2011, Lord Hanningfield was found guilty on six counts.
  • Swraj Paul, Baron Paul has been suspended from the House of Lords for four months and ordered to pay back £41,982
  • Lord Taylor of Warwick pleaded not guilty to six charges of false accounting, but was convicted at Southwark Crown Court on 25 January 2011.
  • Baroness Uddin faces a police investigation for alleged fraud for claiming at least £180,000 in expenses by designating an empty flat, and previously an allegedly non existent property as her main residence. She was suspended from the House of Lords until the end of 2012 and told to repay £125,349[154][155]

[edit]Creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

On 20 May 2009 Harriet Harman announced the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, intended to manage Members’ expenses at an “arm’s length” from the House, ending the historical self-policing by MPs of their expenses. The IPSA will be responsible for: paying MPs’ annual salaries; drawing up, reviewing, and administering an MPs’ allowances scheme; providing MPs with publicly available information relating to taxation issues; preparing the MPs’ code of conduct relating to financial interests; and determining the procedures for investigations and complaints relating to MPs. Henceforth, there will therefore be two codes of conduct for MPs to follow: a non-statutory code drawn up by the House of Commons itself; and a statutory code drawn up by the IPSA. The IPSA will take over some of the functions previously undertaken by the Fees Office. It will not, however, determine the level of MPs’ pay. That will remain a matter for the Senior Salaries Review Body which annually informs the Speaker of the House of Commons of the percentage increase to be awarded to MPs.

[edit]Surge in independent candidates

A surge in proposed independent candidates and enhanced profile of minority parties were noted in the press.[156] In various cases these candidates stood in recognition of the loss of public goodwill suffered by established MPs and parties, and proposed to stand on “clean slate” or anti-sleaze platforms.[157] In the immediate aftermath of the revelations, a Populus survey said that only 45% of people were committed to voting in the next general election (although 54% said they wanted an election as soon as possible), which had fallen by around a quarter since before the disclosures began. The Conservatives still maintained their lead over Labour, but support for the BNP was up.[158] The poll showed that 19% of voters were prepared to vote outside of the main three parties, with the British National PartyGreen Party of England and Wales, and United Kingdom Independence Party also hoping to capitalise, and was particularly pertinent because of thesubsequent European Parliament election.[159]

[edit]Effect on MPs and on the political structure

The expenses disclosures were published over an extended period of time, with the focus moving to different MPs daily. As a result there was significant pressure on MPs who did not know whether, and for what, they would be discussed, as well as a general deepening hostility that grew over a relatively long period.

On 22 May 2009 Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire went on record in saying that many of her colleagues “feared a suicide” and that MPs were “beginning to crack”. She likened the atmosphere in Westminster to that surrounding Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s “witch hunts” of suspected Communists during the 1950s.[160] The comment led to a forceful rebuke by Conservative leader David Cameron, who stated that the anger and mood were warranted and that MPs should be more concerned about what the public were thinking.[161][162]

On 23 May 2009 the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams warned about the potential effect of the controversy on the democratic process, and that “the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy.”[163] On the same day writing in The Times, columnist and former MP Matthew Parris reflected that “extravagance, genuine mistake, sly acquisitiveness and outright criminal fraud are now jumbled together in the national mind as though there were no moral differences”.[164]

On 11 June 2009 ex-communities secretary Hazel Blears, who chose to resign from the government just before the English county council and European elections, said that she regretted the timing of her decision. She also stated that her decision to wear a brooch with the words ‘rocking the boat’ on the same day as the resignation was a “stupid thing to do”. Speaking to the Manchester Evening News she said of the brooch “It was a brooch my husband had given me. I’d had four weeks of intense media pressure, the like of which I have never known, not just on me but on my husband, my dad, my family. At that point I’d had enough. It was a stupid thing to do but I think it was just trying to put a brave face on—not going out cowed on the basis of expenses claims that genuinely are not true.”[165]

[edit]Reform proposals

On 25 May 2009, Health Secretary Alan Johnson (seen as a possible candidate for Labour leadership) stated that one response to the controversy should be a full review of the electoral and political system. He proposed as part of this, a referendum on changing the electoral system toAlternative Vote Plus.[166]

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader of the opposition, set out his proposal for reform inThe Guardian.[167] He proposed strengthening the power of backbenchers over the government, and other measures as part of ‘a radical redistribution of power’. Writing in the Guardian on 27 May 2009, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg suggested cancelling MPs holidays until ‘the constitutional crisis sparked by the row over expenses is resolved’.[168] Setting out a week by week plan Clegg made wide ranging proposals from placing a cap on individual donations to political parties, to replacing the House of Lords with an elected Senate, to allowing a referendum on electoral reform.[169]

The major political parties and some minority parties (not UKIP) have stated they will publicly disclose information on expenses claims by UK Members of the European Parliament. The proposed disclosures vary between parties.[170]

A study of the possible influence of the voting system on MPs behaviour concluded that those MPs with the safest seats were twice as likely as those with the most marginal seats to be involved in the expenses row.[171]

[edit]Police and tax authority responses

The UK tax authority HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has identified around 40 MPs, including the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, as having claimed for their tax return costs. A minority of these have affirmed they paid tax on the sums involved;[172] HMRC have confirmed they are investigating former Chancellor Alistair Darling’s tax claims, along with those of others involved.[172]Darling had claimed the costs of preparing his tax return as an expense of his office, although tax law regards them as personal costs. Lord Millett, a former Law Lord, described Darling’s claim as “astounding”,[173] and guidance to ministers in 2005 had stated that such expenses were not claimable for tax purposes.[67]

HMRC have also stated they have “repeatedly caught out” MPs attempting to claim such expenses and that spot checks of 25 MPs’ tax forms each year have produced examples of MPs “apparently trying to cheat the system”.[172]

The Economic and Specialist Crime branch of the Metropolitan Police Service have started investigating claims made by a few MPs.[174]

[edit]Criminal charges

See also: R v Chaytor

Keir StarmerDirector of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales announced on 5 February 2010 that three Labour MPs, Elliot MorleyDavid Chaytor and Jim Devine, and Conservative peerLord Hanningfield would face criminal charges of false accounting (s. 17, Theft Act 1968) in relation to their expense claims. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service had concluded that “there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned”.[134][135] All four denied wrongdoing and said they would fight the charges. A joint statement from Morley, Chaytor and Devine said “we totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly”, while Hanningfield said “all the claims I have ever made were made in good faith”.[153][175]

[edit]David Chaytor

David Chaytor appealed along with Jim Devine and Elliot Morley to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that his actions were protected by parliamentary privilege. The Supreme Court ruled against them and he subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[176]

[edit]Eric Illsley

Eric Illsley pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting and was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to 12 months imprisonment.[177]

[edit]Elliot Morley

Elliot Morley admitted two charges of dishonesty and was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 20 May 2011 to 16 months imprisonment. However, he was subsequently released from prison after serving just a quarter of his sentence.[178]

[edit]Jim Devine

Jim Devine pleaded not guilty and was found guilty on two counts but cleared of a third (relating to £360) on 10 February 2011.[179] On 31 March 2011 he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment.[139]

[edit]Lord Taylor of Warwick

Lord Taylor of Warwick pleaded not guilty to six charges of false accounting, but was convicted at Southwark Crown Court on 25 January 2011.[180] On 31 May 2011 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

[edit]Paul White, Baron Hanningfield

Lord Hanningfield pleaded not guilty to six charges of false accounting, but was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court on 26 May 2011.[181]

[edit]Independent audit

An independent panel chaired by former civil servant Sir Thomas Legg was established following the row, with a remit to examine all claims relating to the second homes allowance between 2004 and 2008.[182] The panel published its findings on 12 October as MPs returned to Westminster following the summer recess, with each MP receiving a letter in which they were informed whether or not they would be required to repay any expenses they had claimed. Among those who had to repay expenses were Prime Minister Gordon Brown who claimed £12,415 for cleaning and gardening costs and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who was asked to pay back £910 from a £3,900 claim he made for gardening between 2006 and 2009.[183] Conservative leader David Cameron repaid £218 and was asked to provide more information regarding excessive claims made in 2006 when he changed his mortgage.[183] Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith apologised to the House of Commons after a separate investigation found that she had breached expenses rules over claims made on her second home.[183]

However, MPs from all main political parties expressed their anger at Legg’s decision to apply the rules retroactively, a decision which meant claims that had previously been regarded as legitimate were now considered to have breached the rules. Many senior MPs questioned Legg’s authority and cast doubt on the legality of his findings.[184] It was reported that some MPs, including ToryJonathan Djanogly would challenge the requests to repay their claims.[185] But both the Labour and Conservative leaders urged their party members to pay any overpaid expenses back. Gordon Brown said that MPs should “deal with” the retroactive rules,[186] while David Cameron warned that any member of the Conservative Party who was unwilling to comply with the rules would not be able to stand for the party at the next general election.[187]

[edit]Awards

At the 2010 British Press AwardsThe Daily Telegraph was named the “National Newspaper of the Year” for its coverage of the MPs expenses scandal, which was also referred to as the “Scoop of the Year”. William Lewis won “Journalist of the Year” for his reporting role as well.[188]

Female Viagra

This entry was posted on Monday, August 6th, 2012 at 11:25 am and is filed under Longwoods Online.