Denis MacShane's plea in mitigation...

Denis MacShane is guilty of expenses fraud, but his lawyer has included in his submission that Denis MacShane is a union man... as if that should be a mitigating factor.

"You arrive, sign in, collect €300 for expenses you don't have and then you leave. I like that job, I want that job"

A great piece of investigative reporting.

How our EU masters behave...

A small news article about Gordon Brown that seems to have passed pretty much unnoticed

The Telegraph reports that:

'Gordon Brown has spent nearly £20,000 of his parliamentary expenses on flying between London and Edinburgh, despite rarely appearing in the House of Commons.

Rules allow MPs to claim for the cost of travelling between London and their constituency homes if they are on parliamentary business. However the former prime minister has only spoken in the Commons on three occasions since May 2010. Mr Brown has also participated in only 15 per cent of parliamentary votes since the 2010 election, according to an analysis by the politics website publicwhip.co.uk.

In all, he has claimed £19,237 in parliamentary expenses on air travel between London and Edinburgh between June 29 2010 and Jan 23, 2012.

Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, Essex, said: “It’s shocking that Gordon Brown is claiming thousands for travel, but rarely turns up to speak or even vote on his constituents’ behalf in the Commons.”

A spokesman for Mr Brown’s office said it was “obvious” that when Mr Brown travelled between London and Scotland “he has expenses for travel by aeroplane or train which have to be — and are — fully accounted for”.'

So MPs 'claim for the cost of travelling between London and their constituency homes if they are on parliamentary business'. Was Gordon Brown on parliamentary business? Note that Gordon Brown's spokesman doesn't actually confirm/claim that - “he has expenses for travel by aeroplane or train which have to be — and are — fully accounted for”.

I have no doubt that Gordon Brown or his staff have the receipts for his air travel to and from London but that does not mean that the flights were to enable Gordon Brown to undertake parliamentary business.

Maybe Gordon Brown or one of his spokesman could identify the parliamentary business that Gordon Brown was undertaking on his trips to London, he wasn't appearing in the House of Commons chamber.

Why are the BBC not interested in John Prescott's expenses?

The BBC were obsessed with the expenses scandal and identifying the misdeeds of various, especially Conservative MPs, they seem less interested in the questionable spending of John Prescott as revealed this week. Thanks to Guido Fawkes we know about John Prescott's credit card spending. This article revealed this about John Prescott's spending on expenses:

'Guido has now seen Prescott’s government credit card bill from 2004 through to 2006. It seems he was a big fan of upmarket Westminster canteen Shepherds and has spent £2,073 in Pret a Manger, including £240 in one sitting. Prezza enjoyed the high and low life, with The Cinnamon Club and Clacket Lane Service Station all featuring. What government business was the Deputy Prime Minister doing in a Morrisons supermarket cafe? Three hundred quid steak dinners on the taxpayer? '

How on earth do you spend £240 in one sitting at Pret a Manger? At £8 a head (and that's quite generous) that's lunch for 30 people; did John Prescott really buy lunch for 30? If not did he eat his own way through £240 of food in one sitting?

More intriguing was this article that revealed something more questionable than greed:

'Prezza’s spending on government credit cards knows no bounds. The Telegraph have gone big on the £456 he spent at the Star City casino in Sydney, the £490 at Doyle’s seafood restaurant in Watson’s Bay and £75 at an aquarium in 2004. However Guido understands there is even more to come on this one. Why for example is there an entry for “Miscellaneous Cash” from an Australian hole-in-the-wall:

28/11/04 £3.10 CASH ADVANCE HANDLING FEE
28/11/04 £154.86 LCA

Leaving aside the obvious financial malpractice of withdrawing cash on a credit card, especially in a foreign country, why on earth was this happening in the first place. What was the £160 spent on and where are the receipts?'

All fascinating questions about the expenses policy operated by the former Deputy Prime Minister. So I turned to the BBC to see how they were covering the story already in The Telegraph and on the web and what did I find? Nothing... I searched the BBC news website for John Prescott and found nothing about this story at all. The last John Prescott related article told us that 'Former Hull MP John Prescott is auctioning off gifts he received in his role as deputy prime minister.'

So why no coverage of this story BBC?


As an addendum I also note that whilst The Telegraph find the space to report that 'Tessa Jowell oversaw £13,000 spend on cakes and pubs' in a piece about odd expenses during her time at the Cabinet Office, including 'Nearly £50 was spent at Seastar Superbikes'; the BBC report nothing of the story.

''Here we are, the Jews again.''

The Telegraph report that the unpleasant Gerald Kaufman has been at it again.

'Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP, has apologised after exclaiming ''here we are, the Jews again'' when a fellow Labour MP stood up in the House of Commons.

The Manchester Gorton MP made the remark from his seat when Louise Ellman made an intervention during a debate on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.

It is understood that Mrs Ellman, who represents Liverpool Riverside, was ''very upset'' by the remarks and made a formal complaint to the Labour Party. '

The apology was not exactly fulsome and in fact was the sort of mealy mouthed one that we have come to expect from Labour MPs over the years.

Gerald Kaufman is not only rather unpleasant he also pushed the expenses system quite hard. In case you had forgotten here is The Telegraph article about his expenses, here's a few extracts (my emphasis):

'Sir Gerald Kaufman charged the taxpayer £1,851 for a rug he imported from a New York antiques centre and tried to claim £8,865 for a television.

...

On one occasion he asked a civil servant “why are you querying these expenses?” and on another threatened to make a complaint unless a dispute was settled by noon on the day in question. In one document, an official in the fees office noted that invoices Sir Gerald had submitted took him to “within 6p” of his annual limit. He also claimed £1,262 for a gas bill that was £1,055 in credit.

Between 2001 and 2008 the Manchester Gorton MP, one of the Labour party’s longest-serving members, claimed a total of £115,109 in additional costs allowances on his London flat, which he owns outright. In June 2006, he submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen Beovision 40in LCD television. The maximum amount MPs are allowed to claim for TVs is £750.

...

In March 2007 Sir Gerald submitted a claim for £1,461.83 for a “second-hand rug replacing 24-year-old carpet”, with an additional £389.91 for “customs duty on rug”, which was paid. The receipt showed that Sir Gerald bought the rug from the Showplace Antique Centre on West 25th Street in Manhattan for $2,750. The Green Book strictly forbids “antique, luxury or premium grade” furnishings.


...

Sir Gerald was also challenged over regular claims for “odd jobs” which he submitted without receipts at a rate of £245 every month — £5 below the then limit for unreceipted expenses. He replied: “Why are you querying these expenses?”

On May 18, a senior official in the fees office noted details of another conversation about the kitchen and bathroom, saying: “MP believes that I have seen a detailed breakdown of the £12,416.51 claim he has submitted [for that financial year]… MP is becoming agitated and will be making an official complaint against me, if this matter is not resolved by 12 noon today.” When detailed invoices were submitted, they included £575 for undertile heating in the shower room and £2,695 for Bosch and Miele kitchen appliances. Sir Gerald was asked to attend a meeting with officials on the matter and the fees office eventually agreed to pay him £15,329 of the £28,834. Sir Gerald accepted, saying that he wanted to “draw a line under the issue”.

In June last year Sir Gerald submitted a £1,262 claim for his gas bill, covering the period March 2006 to May 2008. The fees office pointed out that his gas account was £1,055.60 in credit, and only agreed to pay £122.46.

A note in the file on July 10, 2008 quotes Sir Gerald as saying: “I received a letter from [official] saying not pay as is credit. I paid £1,252 THIS year so want reimbursing!!!”

The fees office wrote to him on July 14 to say: “You might wish to ask British Gas to repay you the credit.”

Sir Gerald’s claims between 2004 and June 2008 also included £19,200 for food — close to the maximum — and £4,692 for cleaning.

Last night Sir Gerald offered to repay the money for the rug and admitted that his claim for the £8,000 television was “a bit daft”.

He said that his flat had been in need of complete refurbishment because he had “neglected” it over the years and he had overclaimed for the gas bill because he “misunderstood” the invoice.

He said that his odd jobs bill was actually more than £245 a month, so he had claimed close to the limit. His food claim was “appropriate” because his job meant he often had to “spend a lot of money” eating out, he added. '

Unpleasant and a trougher to boot.

£25 per yard - oink little piggie, oink!

The Mail has discovered that:

'Eugene Sullivan, the £180,000-a-year chief executive of the Audit Commission – motto: ‘protecting the public purse’ – charges taxpayers £18,000 a year for his stays at the luxury Westminster hotel, plus more than £5,000 a year in train fares, taxis and car mileage.

On top of that he receives the ‘travel’ allowance, even though the hotel is 164 yards from his office

On Thursday morning last week, he followed his usual comfortable routine at the hotel.

At 7am, he came down from his room wheeling two bags behind him, approached the concierge, informed him that he had left two suit carriers in his room and bid him a cheery ‘see you next week’.

He then embarked on the 60-second journey to his office in the adjoining Millbank Tower. By pocketing the allowance, he is effectively claiming £25 per yard per year.'

This sort of thing makes me so angry but the pampered Civil Service fat cats just go on supping the cream.

I seem to have moved from piggies to cats during the course of this piece, oh well!

Couldn't happen a nicer guy

Former Labour MP, Jim Devine, has been formally declared bankrupt following a hearing at Livingston Sheriff Court. Jim Devine is also awaiting sentencing after being convicted of defrauding the taxpayer.

No comment I just thought we could all do with some cheering up.

Did Gordon Brown ever answer this question?

From last September:

'"SIR, For the benefit of his party conference next week and for the rest of us, could Gordon Brown complete the following sentence: "I claimed £36 per month for a Sky Sports package that was wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the performance of my parliamentary duties because..."
David Saunders
Sidmouth, Devon"


From Saturdays Telegraph '

Sunday top posts

1. The FT explain why Danny Alexander has not been caught 'bang to rights' over his CGT non-payment:

'But this morning’s story about his not paying capital gains tax on a London property appears overblown. Alexander bought his London flat in 1999 and started claiming on it only in 2005 when he became an MP; at that point it was his only home.

When he sold it two years later he paid no cgt - even though by then he had a home in Scotland (bought in 2006) and had designated the flat as his “second home” in respect of his Parliamentary allowance.

How come? Because under HMRC rules, if you move out of your main abode there is a three-year grace period during which you don’t have to pay any capital gains tax on selling it. As a result there was no obligation on Alexander to pay the levy and therefore he didn’t breach any rule. It is neither a “legal loophole” nor a piece of cunning tax avoidance.

In fact, I’m not sure the country wants a Treasury minister idiotic enough to go out of his way to pay taxes he was not liable for.'

2. Anna Raccoon beautifully explains the 'Bureaucratic Pecking Order':

'Those who can peck,
peck.

Those who can’t peck,
teach pecking.

Those who can’t teach pecking,
administer the teaching of pecking.

Those who can’t administer the teaching of pecking,
regulate the administration of the teaching of pecking.

Those who can’t regulate the administration of the teaching of pecking,
advocate at the bar, for or against the regulation of the administration
of the teaching of pecking.

Those who can’t advocate at the bar, for or against the
regulation of the administration of the teaching of pecking,
legislate about advocating for or against the regulation of the
administration of the teaching of pecking.

And this whole house of cards, legislation about advocating for
or against the regulation of the administration of the teaching of pecking,
is all paid for only by those who can and do peck...'

3. Blazing Cat Fur details (in his words, not mine):

'Ali Mallah a notorious Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Union Thug Assaults intrepid blogger Blazingcatfur! Mallah, who is also a Vice President of the virulently anti-semitic Canadian Arab Federation, is well known for his anti-Israel derangement and is shown in the video as he attempts to prevent Blazing from filming an anti-Netanyahu protest sponsored by the Leftist Islamofascist alliance in Toronto.'

This story may run and run.


4. Anna Raccoon has found another example of wasted public money:

'The financially pressed NHS has commissioned the Mother’s Union in Somerset to hand knit 150 breasts.

They are ‘cheaper than’ the £35 a boob version they used to buy.

The fake breasts will be issued to health visitors and community nurses who help support new mothers.

...


Before we could afford outreach workers to go and teach new born babes how to suck……

Jeez, no wonder the country is broke.'

There are examples of this sort of waste throughout the public sector, but if the Conservative/LibDem coalition propose any cuts the cry will be 'doctors, nurses and teachers' not outreach workers and teachers of tit sucking.


5. And talking of breastfeeding, And there was me thinking reports on a most peculiar fatwa:

'One of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions is to discipline a cleric after he issued a decree allowing women to breastfeed their male colleagues.

...

Dr Izzat Atiya of Egypt's al-Azhar University said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.

...

His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

...

According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.'

There are some really strange people around.


6. Burning Our Money explains why the poor have not got poorer but richer and why the definition of poverty needs updating:

'Yes, there are plenty of people who live sad dysfunctional workless lives. But that's nothing to do with lack of material resources. That's to do with poor education, destructive personal behaviour, and our grotesque level of welfare dependency. None of which will be solved by yet more welfare cash.

Which is why we have long argued for reformulating our definition of what constitutes poverty. Ideally, we'd like to switch to an absolute standard of poverty such as they have in the US. But if we have to stick with a definition measured relative to median income, we'd settle for dropping the current poverty line at 60% of median income, and switching to a 50% line.

Why?

First, because we estimate it would save £20-30bn pa from the current welfare bill. And second, because it would increase the attractiveness of work relative to welfare (ie it would make the poverty trap problem a whole lot easier to solve).'

I thought they were probably Labour MPs

The BBC article about MPs (and former MPs) having to repay expenses is missing a few details. The first two MPs named are described as "Tory Liam Fox... and Labour's Shahid Malik". But after that the MPs named seem to be missing their political party affiliations; my suspicions were aroused so I had to do some fact-checking:

"Other MPs who had appeals rejected were Roger Casale, Chris Pond and Betty Williams.

Six MPs had their appeals upheld in full and a further four - John Lyons, Denis MacShane, Alan Simpson and Derek Wyatt - had their sums requested reduced by sums ranging from £121 to £7,866. "

Let's see that's MPs whose appeals were rejected in full or part:
Roger Casale - former Labour MP
Chris Pond - former Labour MP
Betty Williams - current Labour MP
John Lyons - former Labour MP
Denis MacShane - current Labour Minister
Alan Simpson - current Labour MP
Derek Wyatt - current Labour MP

No I can't see why the BBC would drop the listing of party affiliations, can you?

The MPs second home scandal

I read in The Telegraph that:

"MPs could face bills for thousands of pounds after the new parliamentary watchdog, Sir Ian Kennedy, said they should give up some of the profits on taxpayer-funded second homes. "

Good, this was the biggest scandal of the expenses row and one that I am sure many MPs thought had gone away. If MPs are given money by the taxpayer to fund a second home then any profits from the sale of such a home should revert to the taxpayer not the MP. Of course the line at present is just that:

"Sir Christopher said that MPs should forfeit any rise in the value of second homes between the publication of his report last November and the implementation of the new allowances system. "

But hopefully this will be extended backwards to catch all MPs who have made such profits over the last 10 years or maybe more. I do not see why MPs should be able to enrich themselves off of the backs of taxpayers. And I will not be satisfied with them paying tax on the profits, I want all the profits returned to the taxpayer.

The malign influence still near the heart of British politics

Read and wonder how nobody knew in advance that "Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, the head of the independent watchdog charged with reforming MPs’ expenses and restoring public trust in Parliament, is a close friend of Alastair Campbell. "

Wrong Harriet, wrong

The BBC loyally report the latest bleatings of Harriet Harman, as she tries to curry favour with MPs ahead of a Labour leadership election. Harriet Harman is reported as saying that Sir Thomas Legg's review of MPs' expenses must be based on the "rules and standards that obtained at the time".... "To do anything else would be arbitrary,". The fact is that the Green Book made it perfectly clear what could be claimed and once again I will repeat what I have said before:

"From The Green Book:

"Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties."

"Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed."


"Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else."


"Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes."


"Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others."

From "The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament":

"Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends."


"Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services."

If that is not clear enough for Harriet Harman, her fellow troughers and the BBC how about this from May. It's further extracts from the Green Book with my comments:

"1.3 Fundamental principles

In July 1995, the House agreed to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament – this can be found on the internet here – which includes a number of general principles of personal conduct. These are based on concepts of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The broad principles set out below are derived from the Code of Conduct and underpin the allowance regime. When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles.
The principles are:
Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.

Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
Bar-B-Qs, David Miliband's pot plants, Gordon Brown's Sky subsciptions etc.


Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation.


It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source.


Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
Quoting from The Telegraph: "Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years. Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, also switched his second home, which allowed him to improve extensively his family home in Derbyshire before buying a London town house also funded by the taxpayer. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary, also bought flats — or the freehold on a property they already owned — and claimed stamp duty and other moving costs. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, claimed thousands of pounds to improve his constituency home after he had announced his resignation as an MP. He sold the property for a profit of £136,000." Well to my eye these "give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else"


Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
The actions taken by Speaker Martin, Gordon Brown and others in trying to restrict what information is to be made public and then today in getting the Police involved in looking for the leaker rather than investigating the possible frauds seems to go against the principle of "openness".


Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
So excuses about mistakes being made by clerical staff are not allowable excuses, bear that in mind when listening to the squirming Members.


The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
New heating systems because the water is too hot, multiple flat screen TVs in one house, etc. etc. etc.


Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.
All claims for just under the £250 disclosure limit should be considered suspect."

Letter of the week

"SIR, For the benefit of his party conference next week and for the rest of us, could Gordon Brown complete the following sentence: "I claimed £36 per month for a Sky Sports package that was wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the performance of my parliamentary duties because..."
David Saunders
Sidmouth, Devon"

From Saturdays Telegraph

Conservative Shadow Cabinet and Frontbench expenses

I can barely resist a look at the Conservatives expenses on-line. Here are some recent ones of interest:

"Philip Hammond 24/06/2009 Administrative & Office Allowance Invoice for Database support 600.00"

One off charge, monthly charge, annual charge? The answer would help us to see if the charge was reasonable.

"Philip Dunne 07/05/2009 Administrative & Office Allowance Stationery for HoC - Staples 0.48"

How mean do you have to be to charge the taxpayers for £0.48 for a pen or similar? I remember when I was employed and on a job and found I had no working pen on me, I went to a newsagent and purchased a biro from my own money and thought no more about it. Mind you I wasn't earning even 10% of what an MP earns.

"Theresa May 08/06/2009 Administrative & Office Allowance technical support for case management system 600.00"

ne off charge, monthly charge, annual charge? The answer would help us to see if the charge was reasonable.

"Michael Gove 19/06/2009 Communications Allowance Website maintenance for May, June and July 2009 862.50"

For £250 a month (plus VAT) you would have thought that he could get some better photos up on his website.