How many mps fiddled expenses

The Commons director of resources, i. The sleaze was widespread and endemic. It was associated with all the political parties and all levels within them from Cabinet ministers to backbenchers.

Moreover, it became clear that many MPs had vigorously and systematically attempted to prevent disclosure of their misdemeanours by stopping the information from being released. In this way, they actively sought to place themselves above the rule of law. They tried to set themselves apart from the electorate, i.

There seem to be a number of contributory factors that feed into each other. This could have been because MPs feared the disapproval of their constituents : the voters. This combination apprehension regarding public opinion and special circumstances may have contributed to certain MPs feeling that they were undeservedly under-paid for which they should be compensated somehow.

During the tribunal of February , Andrew Walker, the House of Commons director of resources and Head of the Parliamentary Fees Office the branch of the civil service responsible for scrutinizing MPs expenses claims was questioned about its somewhat opaque workings.

Where there are no receipts there is no checking. Thus, MPs could claim for petrol that they had not used.

There was an internal safeguard : the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards a position established in who would examine complaints against MPs and report to the external safeguard : the Committee on Standards in Public Life created in None of the parliamentary defences put in place by the reforms of prevented MPs plundering the Exchequer.

They could do as they wished within reason and beyond it. The expenses system was out of control. There was no independent audit. The culture was pernicious. The House of Commons behaved like a company that certified its own accounts or hired a hole-in-the-wall firm of book-keepers, good friends of the chairman, to sign them off. Certain MPs may have deliberately deprived the Parliamentary Fees Office of resources and influence in order to prevent it from operating efficiently.

On 17 May , he said that he had an arrangement with the Parliamentary authorities that enabled him to claim interest payments on the entire amount of the mortgage on his second home although the loan had already been repaid. This may be linked to the new type of MP entering the House of Commons in recent years who is more distant from ordinary people, i. But the Westminster community is the size of a town, stretching almost half a mile along the river, and many of its inhabitants spend most of their working life there.

And the more self-sufficient they are, the less they can seriously represent the rest of the population. Clearly, if she had behaved similarly in a job outside Parliament she would have been in serious trouble, but she probably would not have even had the possibility to behave in such a way. Some MPs may have lost their moral compass, as they did not have any bearings within civil society :. In Britain, the great majority of occupations, professions, corporations, institutions and civil associations of one kind or another have evolved over time an exacting set of codes of morality and behaviour.

They insist on high standards of honesty and integrity. Members of the Political Class, who have very little experience beyond the connected worlds of the media, politics and public relations, find it extremely hard to understand this.

They have a tendency to believe that virtue only resides in the state, and that civil society is largely corrupt, and certainly not to be trusted.

In fact, rather than observe a uniquely high set of standards, the Political Class often conducts itself in a way that would be utterly abhorrent to respectable British People. It was also in keeping with the idea of Parliament as a fortress. It seems unlikely that so many MPs could have devised such means individually, all on their own. Before the expenses scandal was revealed, P.

Oborne suggested that MPs from the new political class tend to stick together whatever the political party in their own interest. This growing gulf may have led in part to the abuse of the expenses and allowances system by so many MPs, with completely different profiles and from all political parties.

An outlook may have emerged which led to a sense of superiority among MPs that pushed parliamentary privilege into the realm of misuse and abuse, largely helped by self-regulation of the Parliamentary Fees Office whose employees had been pressurised by MPs or conspiring with them.

It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years. In a few cases, MPs even broke the law of the land. Moreover, once found out, a majority of MPs defended themselves by saying they were just abiding by the rules.

The degree of the abuse might be connected to the increasing number of professional MPs going into the House of Commons — a political class for whom politics is their entire life and only source of income. This may have led to a disconnect between MPs and the electorate, a gulf which diminished the feeling of accountability and accentuated the feeling of parliamentary privilege.

For it was journalists who made the initial Freedom of Information requests and who doggedly made appeals on several occasions.

This was necessary because MPs — often under the guidance of the Speaker Michael Martin — consistently tried to impede the publication of their expenses.

After leaving office and after the Parliamentary expenses and allowances scandal, Tony Blair looking back in his autobiography revealed his considerable disdain for both the Freedom of Information Act and journalists :.

Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible, nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.

Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder, I used to say — more than a little unfairly — to any civil servant who would listen : Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him?

We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you, knowing what you know, have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government? Some people might find that shocking. It is used as a weapon. Furthermore, the culture of secrecy and the politics of personal advantage that characterised the British Parliamentary system at the start of the twenty-first century would have persisted.

Exploring patterns of misconduct in the contemporary House of Commons", British Politics , , 6, Yet the public's disillusion and clarion call for change seem not to have reduced MPs' conceit. They think they have the right to subvert democracy by blocking the path to Brexit. If they had learnt some humility from the expenses scandal, they would have done all they could to implement the referendum mandate.

Instead, they have indulged in shameless prevarication and procrastination. Can't they see the howl of anger in last week's local elections and the fury they encounter on doorsteps about failing to honour the referendum and the wishes of Local councillors may have just been the fall-guys, but it was a message to ultra-Brexit Tories and the Labour Party that voters are fed up with being treated like fools.

The message is simple: why hasn't Westminster enacted the biggest democratic mandate in UK history. MPs have hijacked the process and sabotaged it by obsessing with their own narcissistic agenda. A similar disdain of the public, democracy and of common values of proper behaviour led to the expenses scandal. The expenses scandal sparked a crisis for Parliament and a collapse in the public's respect for politicians.

The Houses of Parliament in Westminster are pictured last month. In , philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote that 'Parliament is a sort of gaming house', full of 'insincerity, disingenuousness, lying, hypocrisy and fallacy', designed by 'players on both sides for obtaining advantages in the game. At least in the 19th century, MPs were figures of independent means, not party hacks who expected their lifestyles to be paid for by taxpayers. The scandal plumbed absurd depths.

MPs submitted claims for reimbursement of ginger biscuits, jellied eels, dog food, toilet seats, tea lights and a single paper clip. Typical was re-designating second homes to maximise allowances and cut tax bills, or employing relatives to boost household income.

As the torrent of revelations continued, a climate of victimhood developed at Westminster, with MPs whining about persecution by the Press. Such moans won little sympathy with the public, whose taxes had underwritten the ridiculous circus for too long. Since the scandal, rules have been tightened and are now overseen by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. But some MPs haven't learnt their lesson. HMRC has listed the ones they deem most dubious as:.

Our expenses statistics have also revealed some other expenses believed to be questionable in previous years. Some bizarre claims include:. From looking at previous cases, the answer is yes.

Exclusive business use can have personal purposes too, and this has resulted in some expenses cases going to court. The Tax Chamber in London ruled all the following as deductible:. The verdicts reached were:. Our UK MP expense statistics have also revealed that MPs have made some pretty dubious claims in the past, including:.

There have also been some pretty surprising claims made on expenses by unnamed MPs for potentially irrelevant or extravagant spending:.