Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

February 28, 2008

Witch-hunt? MPs don't get it

My battle to make MPs' expenses more transparent met with obstruction and mystification

Heather Brooke

Nearly 15 years ago I found myself in a small office digging through boxes of receipts looking at the expense claims of local politicians. Everything was laid bare: all the trips, all the meals, all the hotel bills, all the contracts. I was a young trainee reporter covering the Washington State government, and my editor had suggested I look at these claims to see if there were any instances of corruption or personal enrichment.

The laws of the state required that all expense claims and receipts be open to the public. And do you know what I found? Nothing. Not one instance of an improper claim or misuse of money. That is the result of transparent government.

Fast forward to 2004 and I find myself in London. I decide to replicate the exercise in the Mother of Parliaments. I ask the House of Commons for a detailed breakdown of MPs' expenses. So unusual is this request that the officials greet my question with stunned silence. The public aren't even allowed in the Commons Library to access official documents paid for with public money, so there's no way they're getting anywhere near expense records.

Later, the officials tell me they're publishing annual bulk figures. But that's no good, I tell them. A myriad of sins can be hidden in bulk totals. An MP can claim £23,000 for a second home but there's no way to see if it is a legitimate expense without a detailed breakdown. Is it for mortgage payments or a new kitchen? Food or a new flat-screen TV?

When the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2005 I used it to ask for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses, staff allowances and finally their second-homes allowance. I encountered relentless opposition from the Commons authorities and Michael Martin, the Speaker. Andrew Walker, the House of Commons' director of finance and administration, said with a straight face that he believed the transparency I sought was bad for democracy. He thought it mere “public curiosity” rather than “public interest” and that it would impinge on MPs' jobs to have to account to the public.

Finally, this week, my three-year battle culminated with the Information Tribunal ruling that MPs must disclose all documentation associated with their second-homes claims. But many MPs are angry about this. They think it's an invasion of their privacy and that my campaign is some sort of witch-hunt. They just don't get it. In a democracy MPs are supposed to be directly accountable to the people they represent; not accountable to other politicians, or officialdom, but to us.

As I listened to Mr Walker testify, the scale of parliamentary arrogance became clear. He didn't even try to hide the fact that there were little or no checks on MPs expense claims. Why should there be? They are honourable members. I could just imagine Mr Walker as Lady Bracknell. The public? As though the very idea of an MP being accountable to the public was so beyond the pale it could barely be allowed in polite conversation.

The fact that no MP has been forthcoming on this just shows what greedy, conniving, manipulative, cheating, and ghastly people they are. I urge eveyone to vote for those who are not currently MPs nor have been MPs before in the next General Election because we all deserve better.

Clive, London, UK

Congratulations to Heather Brooke for putting her finger on the issue of MPsâ€™ expenses. The thing thatâ€™s most worrying about the Conway affair, and that should worry everyone from the Prime Minister on down, is that no-one is very surprised about Derek Conwayâ€™s behaviour. Itâ€™s been greeted with a weary shrug and a widespread â€œwhat did you expectâ€.

In that light, Michael Martinâ€™s behaviour is about as unhelpful as it could be. Instead of coming clean and setting an example, heâ€™s just sat there looking smug and self-satisfied, clearly believing that he is invulnerable to criticism. And so the incredible Â£22,000 expenses he has claimed for a second residence on which the mortgage is paid off will continue to arouse justified suspicion. The only way to overcome this is to put it all on the public record, as Heather Brooke proposes. Letâ€™s see the receipts, Mr Martin.
Tim Simpson, West Sussex

Tim Simpson, Pulborough, West Sussex

What is the problem?

I can't claim for a packet of crisps without a receipt. That isn't an invasion of my privacy it's just the way it is.
If an MP wants to claim back expenses from the public purse then they must produce evidence to justify it.

If the 'honourable' members have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear.

Thats what they tell us anyway.

Paul, Dundee,

Expense claims with no receipts? Can you imagine that in the private sector. The system encourages abuse.

mark, surbiton, surrey

Yes, well done Heather. Keep going after the lot of them and continue your excellent work in exposing them for the self serving bunch of crooks that we, the public, know the majority of them to be.

Isn't it ironic to hear MPs pontificate on the problems of corruption and crime in this country, and then to watch them fight a vicious rearguard action to cover up their own misdemeanours.

It should not be down to a Parliamentary sub-committee to investigate and reform this lot; if we are to take the legislature seriously then the executive should respect the principle of true separation of powers (something which Blair did much to destroy) and allow the judiciary (please, not whitewash Hutton) to form a body which monitors and regulates the behaviour of MPs - I would love to see a few of these types do some porridge - they might then get the straightener that they truly deserve.

Arthur, London,

Congratulations for keeping going.

One of the minor (but effective) ways that secretive organisations stay secret is to treat all requests for information as somehow 'offensive'

Owen, Exeter,

Dear Heather

Congratulations on your campaign. I have posted about this from a partisan view point as a member of the Labour Party:

http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/2008/02/should-labour-m.html

The question being: Which Labour MP will lead the defence of unreceipted expenses?

Peter Kenyon, London,

Excellent article heather!

The people of the UK will put up with whatever the Govt throw at them without so much as a whimper! The Govt know this, which is why they pass laws which apply to themselves only, then other laws which apply to the rest of us.

We are a spineless lot, if I may opine!

Kim r, coventry,

Compare and Contrast

Seventy-six year old pensioner Richard Fitzmaurice deprives the Public Purse of Â£1400 and gets carted off to jail in handcuffs -parliamentary reaction? NONE.

Speaker of House of Commons deprives same Public Purse of more than Â£70,000 Parliamentary reaction - he is applauded into his seat.

They just don't get it.

On the subject of Witch-hunts I see there is a move in Scotland to pardon witches. Is this redress for historical errors or protection for today's 'witches'?

cj, nottinghamshire,

I wish MPs would get as passionate about some of the serious problems we're facing as a nation.
Unfortunately, at the moment, instead of governing, our politicians seem to be more concerned with protecting their pay, privileges, perks and gold plated pensions.

paul, sheffield, UK

Are any MPs or MEPs non doms? It wouldn't suprise me.

Simon Neave, London,

Tim in Singapore brings a reasonable point. Politician leaders there are paid at the highest level to prevent corruption. It seems to work as they (apparently) have the least amount of corruption of any political body.

Tamsin, Eversley, Hampshire, UK

If there are only a few instances of this kind of thing, deal with them, change the rules ("modernise", like you force everyone else to), and get on with it. The impression given by all this "rallying around" is that MPs have something to hide, and that we don't know the half of it. My conclusion is that they are all at it, and that will be the conclusion drawn my the majority of the public. MPs don't appear to understand this, and are happy to sit there with their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, not listening", while the remaining vestiges of public confidence in politicians melt away.

Tony B, Uckfield,

I am amazed at the claim that Â£60K is not enough for them. I wonder how many Londoners get anywhere near this figure. I believe the national average is Â£30K; this means that there are an awful lot of people getting less! AND PROBABLY DOING A FAR BETTER JOB FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF THE PUBLIC THAN THE MPs.

As someone has pointed out, most of them would be hard pressed to get any job outside parliament at half their current income and expenses.

Let us have first a Referendum and then a general election, but one suspects that is precisely what they all fear.

Tried once before but will keep trying.

M. Cawdery, Portadown, UK

How about building a big boarding house somewhere in the olympic development. I'm thinking of something like a student halls of residence. Any MPs who say they need a place in London could have a single room in there for Â£50 a week or so. It might even turn a buck. If they wanted to buy or rent themselves something flashier they could do it out of their taxed income, just like the rest of us.

Apart from the cost of having to be in London from time to time, why else can't these people get by on Â£60,000? Remember, most of them would walk over hot coals and turn up in parliament for free if they had to, just to stay in the limelight.

Redcliffe, London,

Tim in Singapore

If you ask most people they would say that Â£60k IS a lot of money to be paying for someone who (with a few notable exceptions) would not be able to pick up that level of salary in the real world. I suspect that most MPs do not have the skills required to be successful in the marketplace and would struggle to find anything outside parliament - and if they did find something, they woud not like having to cope with being accountable!

John W, Huddersfield,

Tim in SIngapore, the problem with the approach you advocate is simple. We've been stuck with it for years; pay MPs more and we'll get better ones and better government is what we were promised when in fact the more we've paid the worse the resulting standard of MPs and as for quality of government, don't make me laugh.

In my voting lifetime we've had some pretty dire administrations (Wilson and Heath come to mind) but since 1997 we've hit new depths of inadequacy, that get worse with each succeeding year. And you want to pay more?

Geoff, Milnthorpe,

Why doesn't the House of Commons issue an in house debit card to every MP which should be the only method of payment for expenses and allowances. In special circumstances MPs could plead their case to a House of Commons 'bursar'.That way MPs would not have to pay up front for anything & the House would receive itemised accounts for each MP which could easily be made available to the employers (the public) . Any MP who didn't use up their allowance in a financial year should be allowed to allocate the remainder to a worthy cause in their own constituency

Karen Mutch, Exeter, UK

Let us not be too hasty to throw the book at the MP's.

I am not a lover of politics, in which there exist countless pitfalls an hypocrisies, but to an extent we should be thankful that MP's actually want to do the job they are paid for. I wouldn't want to.

As far as I can tell, until you get near the top, the job is a bit of a duffer. Their basic salary is rubbish (GBP60K for central London isn't much), so the only way these people can exist in a decent standard of living is through benefits in kind. If we threaten or remove those, then even the most stalwart MP might find it hard to continue. We should not be too hard on them: we need someone to run the country. They're not all fat cats...

You might be interested to know that a commercial approach to remuneration is adopted here in Singapore. The top figures clear in excess of S$2 million (GBP750K) in basic wages. They say they have enormous responsibility, and they should be rewarded accordingly.

Just something to think about.

Tim, Singapore, Singapore

Heather Brooke, your persistence has done a great service to the people of your country. Your successful legal challenge has proved, that where money is concerned, all people are tempted by greed. The MPs of Westminister have demonstrated, in this episode, that they and the system that they represent must be changed. The legal judgement leads me to wonder why the judge did not recommend a police investigation into the matter of parliamentary allowances. If the law does not apply to MPs, then the laws of the land must be changed to include them. No citizen should be above above the law. The people of Britain do realize that change is necessary. How to achieve this must become the topic for all to decide and vote upon in the very near future .The parliamentary system has disintegrated and the crisis after crisis due to the decisions of MPs are telling us all this. The environment, Iraq and Afghan wars, other wars prior to these, banking disasters and MPs allowances are just a few.

JIm Wills, Brisbane , Australia

We have a different system here in Scotland. We have already lost two party leaders, various other MSPs have lost their positions, and we have a party leader in some considerable difficulty, all for sums which MPs would find no difficulty in hiding. In a recent Question Time programme found Ken Clarke it hilarious that Wendy Alexander was being invertigated for such a paltry sum as Â£950. That represent two months state pension for me. I was investigated for an alleged payment of Â£10 one week by the Pensions Service!

Every single expense should have a receipt and be declared. Can't these people live on Â£60,000 a year?

Ally, Motherwell, Scotland

The same standards should apply to MPs as to all other taxpayers claiming business expenses. Other taxpayers have to produce receipts for ALL expenditure and prove they are legitimate expenses incurred in the course of their business. If HMRC do not accept them as legitimate expenses they will treat them as a taxable benefit resulting in a tax charge. Transparency would benefit MPs as if they could demonstrate that all of their claims were legitimate expenses, other taxpayers would be less suspicious of the "blank cheque" written to themselves scenario.

R Harris, Horsham, West Sussex