Downing Street Says » MPs’ Expenses

Asked if the Prime Minister had been consulted before the meeting of the Estimates Committee today and what in general did he feel needed to be done, the Prime Minister s Spokesman (PMS) told the assembled press that the Prime Minister s general view was that we needed to have a proper and thorough reform of the system for MPs allowances. That was why he called some time ago for a proper independent report from Sir Christopher Kelly. The Estimates Committee was meeting today and we would see what came out of that, but clearly any longer term and sustainable reform of the system had to be on the basis of the Sir Christopher Kelly review, as we had been saying for some time.

Asked if the Prime Minister s views had been fed into the Estimates Committee, the PMS replied that the members of the Estimates Committee could speak for themselves and no doubt would do so. The Prime Minister had been setting out consistently his views on reform of MPs expenses for some time now.

Asked whether the Prime Minister thought that the House of Commons should accept the Kelly Report in full, the PMS said that we had always made clear that this was for the House of Commons and if there were any changes to the rules, they would have to be voted on by the House of Commons. The Prime Minister had always been a strong advocate of Sir Christopher Kelly and his review and we had always said that that should form the basis of any reforms going forward.

Put that there had been talk of a pre-emptive resolution of the House backing the Kelly Report no matter what it suggested and would the Prime Minister be in favour of such a resolution, the PMS said he was not aware of any such resolution and he would not speak on behalf of the Prime Minister on that given that this was not something that had been put to him.

Asked whether the Prime Minister would oppose any changes that would make the details of MPs expenses exempt from FOI rules, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister s view was that of course there needed to be a tougher audit, but he was not of the view that this should be at the expense of transparency. Asked if the Prime Minister or No10 had had any contact with Sir Christopher Kelly to try and expedite the report, the PMS said that Sir Christopher Kelly knew what the Prime Minister s view was and that was to see the report published as soon as was practicable.

Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied with the conduct of all his Ministers, the PMS replied that all of the individual Ministers concerned had explained how their actions were consistent with the rules as they currently stood. The Prime Minister had been a long advocate of change to those rules, and he had set out his general view on the situation across Parliament this morning.

Asked if the Prime Minister had been aware last week that Hazel Blears had not paid any Capital Gains Tax, the PMS said it was for individual Ministers and individual MPs themselves to answer questions about their own particular arrangements. Hazel Blears had responded to the specific accusation that had been made against her. It was the Prime Minister s view that the system needed to change. Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied with Hazel Blears explanation, the PMS said that the individual Ministers had set out their explanations and these had to be accepted.

Asked if the Prime Minister would follow Lord Naseby s advice to disolve Parliament immediately, the PMS said that the Prime Minister s view was that the way to resolve this was for Parliament to come together and reform the system and that s what he would continue to push for. Asked if the only sanction MPs were likely to face was the voters verdict, the PMS said he would not answer hypothetical questions.

Put that the Prime Minister could not be happy with the behaviour of Hazel Blears in relation to Capital Gains Tax, the PMS replied that Hazel Blears had given her response to that accusation. There had been a number of accusations that had been made about many MPs. It was the Prime Minister s view that the system did need to change and he had been setting out the case for change this morning.

Put that people had not received a full explanation as to why Hazel Blears had told different authorities different things in relation to Capital Gains Tax, the PMS said that Hazel Blears had given a response to this, there was a statement from her office and that s where things stood. Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied with Hazel Blears explanation, the PMS said that the Prime Minister had seen all the explanations from all the different Ministers and he was satisfied with those explanations.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought there should be new rules on the flipping of second homes, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister believed that the whole system needed to be reformed; he had called for some quite big changes to the second home allowance in recent weeks but unfortunately he was not able to reach consensus with other party leaders on that.

Asked whether the Prime Minister would give evidence at the Kelly Report hearings, the PMS said that the Prime Minister had met with Sir Christopher Kelly to discuss his proposals and his views on this were well known. Anything further along those lines would be considered in the usual way.

Asked if the Prime Minister was criticising the rules or the culture of claiming on expenses when he criticised the system, the PMS replied that the Prime Minster had been setting out his views on this today. Clearly there were a wide range of issues that had contributed to this and we did need to have a new system. As the Prime Minister had said this morning, politicians had a responsibility to show that people who entered the profession of politics were there to serve the public interest and not there to serve themselves.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought that the House was capable of sorting out the system, the PMS said it was the Prime Minister s view that it was very important that the House of Commons did show that it was able to reform itself and was able to improve its standing with the public, because so much rested on the decisions that were taken in our democracy by the House of Commons.

1 Comment »

‘Integrity’. — Small word ..huge philosophy……Gone now, from much of business ,property transaction,- and government.

While we read of cynical, grasping and repeated ‘flipping’ of properties by government persons ,-at our expense,- capital gains tax scams , second home allowance abusers and vast expenses claims by the morally corrupt – all heaped upon us to endure -and finance…whilst we look at all of this in abject horror- we, as people who are in the property sector’s —wholly honestly and fairly -hardly know where to turn or whom to turn to, when we so desperately need help and real guidance having been cruelly duped and swindled by all concerned.

As we suffer a tidal wave of EU sourced laws, overruling our existing ones to dust.-.it seems they are unstoppable and unchallengeable and we have no control over our own country and its destiny.

We pay £40 million a day into the EU.( Yes, you read that correctly) Therefore, we all should have, at least ,the protection of the EU when purchasing property in an EU country. But , -WE DO NOT.

Our letters to MEP,S , M.P’S AND EU organisations and EU official bodies -are all ignored or rebuffed with ineffectual advice to be forwarded, to yet another , EU office. Meanwhile months pass,

-serious situations become disasters…. and for many of us- financial ruin , loss of such magnitude it ruins lives and encroaches on every aspect of ones life and manifests in illness and vast stress.

We have no manoeuvrability whatsoever and those to whom we write or try to arrange meetings with -can have no moral compass or human decency- for if they had,- we, would have had the help and support -throughout.

What do we gain from being a member of the EU?

Why was Bulgaria , for instance ,declared an EU member & yet be totally devoid of the laws and protection of Europe ?

To whom can we depend upon when there is obvious fraud and malpractice and yet no one seems to care at all?

whilst MEP’S and MP’S strive for second homes and fat pensions……. and collectively, spend huge amounts of time and effort on the expenses lists – many of the readers of this website are defrauded to homelessness and poverty. To whom do we address this scandal?

The apathy is shocking and those’ in the know ‘ long ago realised this………. so that they could then dupe the public,- without redress and legal penalty , nor have the fear of even mere reimbursement to those who suffered such heavy loss. Who ends this insanity?
Misrepresentation is everywhere in the property transactions and the complicity between Agents and lawyers is corrupt .How is this ever allowed ?
Why is there not a control on build quality and snagging?

Why are there not stringent guarantees made.. and channels of enquiry, enabled, to be effective?

Whilst so many of us face penury…….What ,exactly, is the European consumer Centre doing?

Does the ECC and the Commissioner have a plan in place for the huge number of complaints?

Why do purchasers have no recourse whatsoever when property transactions go wrong? Why is the law so substandard?

Sadly To be entrepreneurial or to simply enable a retirement or to gain a foothold in the uk property market …………is impossible it seems… in the face of greed and incompetence of bank and government …………….but surely it is capable of upholding the law and seeking justice for its trying, & hard working citizens?

·
Comment by J.BRAMWELL — 19 May 2009 on 11:13 pm | 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.

» Monday, May 11, 2009

MPs’ Expenses

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries