Downing Street Says » MPs’ Expenses

Asked whether the Prime Minister felt it was embarrassing that so many Cabinet Ministers had made expenses claims that were somewhat controversial in nature, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) told the assembled press that the Prime Minister had been expressing his general views on this subject this morning and the PMS had nothing further to add to that. In relation to individual Ministers, they themselves had issued statements on their own specific claims.

Asked if the Prime Minister would like to see a criminal investigation if it had transpired that someone had committed a criminal offence in passing this information to the media, the PMS said that the Prime Minister would think that that was not a matter for him. Put that in relation to the Prime Minister’s own claims, Harriet Harman had said that it looked bad, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister had expressed his general view on this issue this morning. In relation to his own specific claims, there was a statement issued by the Prime Minister’s political office, which set out his position.

Asked whether the Prime Minister was comfortable claiming a second home allowance during his period in the Government when he had had a grace and favour home, the PMS said that the Government had set out its position on grace and favour homes quite recently. The Prime Minister had said that he would support the reforms to the system on grace and favour homes and we were introducing changes to the Ministerial Code to that effect. The system that had been in place was the system that had been in place not only for this Government but for previous Governments as well.

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with Harriet Harman who had said that the responsibility of checking these claims lay in large part with the fees office, the PMS said that this was a question about the arrangements for individual MPs and their own individual expenses, which was not a matter for him. Asked whether the Prime Minister had had any contact with Cabinet Ministers on this issue, the PMS said that the Prime Minister spoke to his Cabinet Ministers all the time. The individual Ministers themselves had issued statements in response to the position regarding their own claims, explaining how the claims they had made were consistent with parliamentary rules.

Asked if the Prime Minister was comfortable with those statements, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister had set out his general position in the interview he gave this morning. The Prime Minister had also made clear that the system had got to change and he had been leading the efforts to change the system in recent weeks and months.

Asked what damage the Prime Minister thought had been done by the revelations that concerned so-called flipping of homes, the PMS said that it was the Prime Minister’s view and had been for some time that the system had got to change. MPs had to run second homes and there were costs associated with that, but the Prime Minister had been making clear for some time that the system did have to change. The specific accusations about individual Ministers and their second homes had been dealt with by those Ministers in their statements overnight.

Asked whether the Prime Minister believed that Cabinet Ministers had behaved with integrity at all times in relation to their expenses claims, the PMS replied that individual Ministers had responded to the individual claims about them. They had explained how the action they had taken was consistent with parliamentary rules. Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the release of the full documentation should be brought forward, the PMS said that that was a matter for the House authorities.
Asked if the Prime Minister had full confidence in the Ministers who had acknowledged that mistakes had been made in relation to expenses claims, the PMS said that the Prime Minister did have full confidence in those Ministers. Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the public had a right to know roughly where MPs main and second homes were, the PMS said that the Prime Minister was a strong supporter of greater transparency, which was why he supported the release of receipts under the FOI rules earlier this year. Of course, there were legitimate security considerations that also needed to be taken into account.

Put that not all the Cabinet members expenses had been published today and did the PMS anticipate any ministerial resignations arising from this, the PMS said that the question as to why particular MPs had had their expenses released in this way and at this time was a question that should be addressed to the Daily Telegraph. Asked if any Ministers had gone to the Prime Minister and offered their resignation as a result of their expenses claims, the PMS said that he was not aware of any such approaches being made.

Asked whether security concerns could justify failing to publish contested claims and disputes between members, the PMS reiterated that the Prime Minister was in favour of greater transparency. This was a specific question about specific rules, which was not a matter for the Government, but a matter between MPs and parliament. MPs had decided what the process should be for release and that was where things stood.

Asked when the Prime Minister had found out about these claims being published, the PMS said that we first became aware of the intention by the Daily Telegraph to publish this information yesterday afternoon. Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s office or the fees office that had marked Andrew Brown’s name for redaction, the PMS said that that was a question for one of his political colleagues who spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister on constituency matters.

Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that his own standing would be damaged by this, the PMS said that this was clearly an issue that was affecting MPs right across the House. It was clear that the system had to change. The specific issues relating to the Prime Minister had been addressed in a very detailed statement from the Prime Minister’s political office, but we did need to change the system and that was what the Prime Minister had been saying this morning. Asked if it was the fault of the system, the PMS said that the system needed to change.

8 Comments »

Ok, so maybe MP’s believe they havent committed criminal offenses and have kept within the rules but they have certainly deeply offended the British public with this immoral outrage. Groceries, nappies, chocolates, TV’s, Bed ect, ect, ect. We, the general public, have to purchase such items from our salaries and wages so why should the tax payers have to pay for such items for MP’s?
I have long been outraged by taxpayers money wasted by Government departments and Quangos. DEFRA probably being one of the worst but MP’s expenses are just beyond belief.
Comment by Mona Neal — 8 May 2009 on 10:57 pm | Link
So, they say they have not broken any rules…..they are probably (mostly) right, let’s disregard double claiming for council tax rebates etc.
The problem I have with the whole of the MP’s pay and expense structure is who decides what they should get, I mean what sort of company would allow their employees to set the level of their own pay rise (via an independant body I’m sure) and then get to vote on whether they should accept the inflation busting increase? None I would guess the answer is; so why do our MP’s get to have this dubious honour while they go around telling our nurses, doctors and other over worked service providers that ‘we must show restraint’.
Unfortunately, our MPs (all of them) seem to think they have a right to spend my (our) money on themselves, enjoying the benetits of a second home just because they live 2 miles outside London and so on!!

Come you lot in Westminster, wake up, smell the coffee and put your feet back on the ground…..all of you earn well above the average wage you do not have the right to top up your income with benefits because it is ‘within the rules’ you should not hold another position that would conflict or restrict in any way your ability to perform the tasks your contituants ask of you or indeed your parliment requests of you.

…..and it is about time all MPs realised that they are our servant and that we are not their servants; being arrogant in their reponses and disregard the peoples concerns and extreme displeasure at the way they behave and act is an abuse of position and show a total lack of respect to the people of the UK.
Comment by Gary Bundy — 8 May 2009 on 11:25 pm | Link
They may not of broken the rules of the Houses of Parliament, but they have broken the rules of public opinon.
Comment by revinkevin — 9 May 2009 on 3:33 pm | Link
I believe that it is very simple to eliminate the abuse of second home allowance for MP’s. There should simply be a Minister’s residence, similar to a hotel, for use of Minister’s when attending to their duties away from their constituencies. For cabinet Minister’s that spend the majority of their time in London it would be more cost effective for the Government to own Apartments / Homes suitable for Cabinet Minister’s and their families.
Comment by Mike — 10 May 2009 on 10:12 pm | Link
I am totally disgusted. Where are the public servants the like of Nancy Astor gone. She GAVE so much to Plymouth and has a wonderful legacy which lives on. What will this lot of greedy B——s leave? Just the smell of the pig sty I guess.
Comment by Pauline Couch — 16 May 2009 on 8:43 am | Link
Fear spreads in Westminister as the Fat Greedy Pig epidemic sweeps through Parliament affecting members of Parliament from all parties. Symptoms include, compulsive theft of taxpayers money,the inability to speak the truth and a thickening of the skin. A spokesperson said there appears to be no antidote and a cull may be necessary,if only.
Comment by Bob, middlesbrough — 17 May 2009 on 3:18 pm | Link
does this mean when these mps leave are all these houses that tax payers have payed for are they going to be given up for all the homeless as there are so many .Also it is all the double standards that infuriate me.Hope the BNP get alot of seats on the 4th .As this country is fast going down the pan
Comment by shaun osborne — 1 Jun 2009 on 6:12 pm | Link
I agree with the person who said accommodation should be provided for MPs who have to spend time in London. How much time does the average MP spend in London anyway? When you see the benches at any time except Prime Minister’s question time, they are almost empty. It is the purchase, furnishing and upkeep of second homes that are then sold at a profit and without paying capital gains tax that has caused so much outrage. Very little leadership has been shown by the PM. In any other organisation people would have been disciplined, forced to resign and prosecuted over fraud and tax evasion, not our MPs apparently. Paying back goes nowhere near to assuaging public disgust. We need a complete reform of Parliament and the voting system so that people voting in safe seats do not feel disenfranchised which is the case at present. Party power should be reduced, language simplified, scrutiny much more effective and constituency workers employed by Parliament not MPs. The number of MPs should also be reduced. Each party must have a very clear manifesto on these issues before the next election.
Comment by Maureen Mansell — 4 Jun 2009 on 10:13 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Friday, May 8, 2009

MPs’ Expenses

8 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries