Don't say the members of the Member's Estimate Committee, chaired by Michael Martin, weren't warned that there was little prospect of their appeal over MPs' expenses succeeding in the High Court.

Apparently a succession of legal advisers to the committee were far from optimistic. And they were right....

The Commons Authorities, fighting to protect the expenses details of 14 high profile MPs (and ex-MPs), have been ruled against by the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the High Court.

Surely now they have run out of road.

Many MPs are frustrated by all this. They know that it sends out all the wrong noises for the Speaker to be constantly trying to fight off the inevitable  - especially at the very time parliament is supposed to be setting its house in order, and bringing in a credible and transparent expenses system.

Comments

[ian edinburgh 20 May 2008 16:37:08]

why is petrol on the rise, does somebody need another house, this country is in trouble and those people are taking pay rise after pay rise and then get more expensess

[Liz, Suffolk 19 May 2008 16:51:07]

I read in the newspaper today that Tony Blair's expenses information will not be published as it has been "inadvertantly" shredded.

These people are lawyers. They know exactly what they are doing and I wait with bated breath to see if anyone can do anything about it.

[Victor, NW Kent 19 May 2008 16:34:34]

We agree very well on this Peter. I hear that the troughing at the European Parliament is a thing of wonder.

Even MEPs who never attend [as for the two Sinn Fein MPs at Westminster] claim everything in sight.

But, after all, it is only tax money, not real money.

[Peter, Fife 19 May 2008 16:00:23]

Victor,

Should we be surprised that the said David Maclean was the very MP who made the headlines in 2007 with his private members bill that sought to exempt the Houses of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.

The controversial bill had unofficial government support.

Mr. Maclean said that “My bill is necessary to give an absolute guarantee that the correspondence of members of parliament, on behalf of our constituents and others, to a public authority remains confidential.”

As I have said all along I feel the vast majority of MPs would rather not have us know how much they claim under rules and guidelines they have devised for themselves; I feel many are in the shadows hoping the legal action raised by the MEC would have been successful.

[Victor, NW Kent 19 May 2008 14:13:29]

My apologies, Peter, I was imprecise. I meant to talk about the sub-Committee appointed by M. Martin to discuss the revelation of member's expenses.

It included David McLean, the Tory MP who earned my contempt previously, when he brought up an objection to these revelations called for under the FOI Act.

The second member was Sir Stuart Bell whose own son was employed as a researcher. Unlike Conway's son he did actually turn up at the Commons and was prosecuted for defrauding George Galloway by conversion of a cheque.

The LibDem member has no strikes against him as far as I know.

The full MEC did not consider this matter and the decision to go to court was that of Martin.

I still say we need a modern Cromwell.

[Peter, Fife 19 May 2008 12:58:22]

Victor,

Really!

“...Who are the Members of the MEC?

The Speaker (Michael Martin), the Leader of the House (Harriet Harman) and the Shadow Leader of the House (Theresa May - nominated by the Leader of the Opposition) are members of the Commission and MEC by virtue of their jobs.

The three backbench MPs' on the Committee are nominated by their parties and appointed by the House. They are Sir Stuart Bell MP (Labour), Nick Harvey MP (Lib Dem) and David Maclean MP (Conservative).

How long have they been members of the Commission/MEC?

The Speaker - since his election in 2000
Sir Stuart Bell - since 2000
Nick Harvey - since 2005
Theresa May - since 2006
David Maclean - since 2005
Harriet Harman - since 2007...”

Source: Members Estimate Committee Q&A, the House of Commons.

[Victor, NW Kent 19 May 2008 10:58:12]

Peter, Fife

The Speaker not only chairs the Members Estimates Committee - he also appoints its members. Michael Martin must bear the total responsibilty for the attempts to maintain secrecy over expenses of MPs.

There is also a story going round that Tony Blair's will not be available as "they" accidentally shredded them.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 18 May 2008 11:51:14]

Joey,
Your write up says it all, and, in my opinion, the end result is absolutely correct, and it is very satisfying to see the arrogant MP.'s being slapped down!

[runskippyrun 17 May 2008 14:51:33]

hmmm, maybe, we should storm westminster and remove these ungrateful and incompetent scroungers. then let us DEMOCRATICALLY choose our body to govern us, and who will be at our beck and call!!! I'd like to be speaker of the house, so's I could tell the windbags their time is up!

[mr happy up north 17 May 2008 10:41:23]

paul leeds

well, sir, that makes at least two of us!
it is all a matter of perception and i grant you that mr cameron is very good at opening the doors of perception.
i can only wonder at what assistance he may have sought in so doing.

[Peter, Fife 17 May 2008 10:31:13]

Annie, Durham,

You must really pay attention to detail, Martin chairs Member’s Estimate Committee, it was the Member’s Estimate Committee who raised the court action not Michael Martin on his own; not that I am claiming that he was without vested interest, partly because I do not have insider information on the said committees’ minutes nor any minutiae to hand to prove or disprove any such claim.

As our legal systems are based on the presumption of innocence, I prefer to wait until all the evidence is to hand before donning the black cap.

[Geoff Manchester 16 May 2008 21:42:08]

Ballsy and Yvette the equivalent of Becks and Victoria.The only difference is that the taxpayer didnt pay for the Beckham's lifestyle.

[philrob 16 May 2008 20:52:57]

Heather Brooke deserves a medal, fighting to get this out in the open

[Anon London 16 May 2008 18:24:31]

According to the expenses already published, Gordon Brown is claiming an allowance for costs incurred because he has to stay away from his own home - around £17k to £18k a year - on top of travelling and flights etc.

Why, when he has been living in downing street for the last 11 years?

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 16 May 2008 18:17:53]

John Delaney
I grew up in Neath...working class...I know all about the rough areas, there is absolutley nothing you can shock me with.
Peter Hain now there's a piece of work, about time he was replaced, safe Labour seat even a dog could stand!

[Ian, Lancashire 16 May 2008 18:11:34]

To judge MP's don't look at what they tell us to do but what they are prepared to do themselves.
Remember Wellington? "publish and be damned". What have the MP's blocking publication got to hide?
Issues like this make them look like the bunch of freeloading wastrels many of us think they are.

[Annie, Durham 16 May 2008 17:04:56]

Peter,
Michael Martin is not the only offender, but, he is and has been the one stopping us from seeing them. He even spent £100,000 trying to do so by going to the high court.

[Annie, Durham 16 May 2008 16:58:25]

Oh, I am so looking forward to seeing the "Balls" up Yvette and Ed made of their expenses. 2 of everything....lol.

[Paul, Leeds 16 May 2008 16:55:30]

Mr Happy up North.
If ignorance is bliss no wonder you are happy.

[The Morning Mail 16 May 2008 16:45:56]

peter fife

i entirely agree with your very good blog on the expenses issue and the hypocrisy surrounding it.

i wonder whether this issue re the speaker was something promoted by the high command at tory central office to take the heat off following the revelations about conway? i suspect that the tory ministers were exhorted to inform the boss if they had anything to declare (just so they could bury it before it reached the media)i believe the attacks on the speaker where designed to achieve this aim.
efforts would have been made to deflect the flak away from conway and thus cameron.
the day following the conway story broke, cameron and others were up early promoting other issues to grab the news agenda away from the conway story - at least on the broadcast media.
it was so obvious what their tactics were, i was surprised that not one presenter who interviewed them mentioned the fact that they were trying to drown out the conway story.(they were so well prepared that it looked suspiciously like they were aware of the issue long before it hit the news.)

not only are the public sick and tired of spin, some of us are sick and tired of being treated as fools by cameron who thinks he is far too clever to be rumbled.
gordon is accused of spinning; however, between the two men, i see gordon as more decent and honest.
cameron's cutlured charm makes him sound confident because he just doesn't have a conscience; whereas gordon is wary of answering some questions because he wants to be absolutely sure he can't be picked up on it later - in other words, he does not want to lie, which, ironically, makes him seem like he is spinning when he is being genuine.
cameron is very entertaining and treats pmqs like it like 'celebrity politics', but how will he cope in a crisis when he can't divert attention with jokes and name calling. that is what people have to think about for the future.

Posted by: mr happy up north 16 May 2008 14:35:45

Excellent blog mr happy and good to have you onboard the Sky blog destroying the Blue rinsed brigades arguements! Well said!!

[John Delaney 16 May 2008 16:31:53]

Mr Happy up North
Have you not figured it out yet that the Speaker is Brown's Labour sidekick, and can't for the life of me see how the Conservatives would hold any sway over Grobals Mick!

Posted by: Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 16 May 2008 15:04:55

Taxi for capetown liz and take her to the gorbals and tell them she a tory voter and one of the secret tory donours can pay.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 16 May 2008 15:04:55]

Mr Happy up North
Have you not figured it out yet that the Speaker is Brown's Labour sidekick, and can't for the life of me see how the Conservatives would hold any sway over Grobals Mick!

[Victor, NW Kent 16 May 2008 14:55:36]

Mr Happy finds that the Tories were resonsible for the actions of Michael Martin to suppress the truth. That is really wild spin.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 16 May 2008 14:53:10]

Game over MPs!
What do they have to hide?

[mr happy up north 16 May 2008 14:35:45]

peter fife

i entirely agree with your very good blog on the expenses issue and the hypocrisy surrounding it.

i wonder whether this issue re the speaker was something promoted by the high command at tory central office to take the heat off following the revelations about conway? i suspect that the tory ministers were exhorted to inform the boss if they had anything to declare (just so they could bury it before it reached the media)i believe the attacks on the speaker where designed to achieve this aim.
efforts would have been made to deflect the flak away from conway and thus cameron.
the day following the conway story broke, cameron and others were up early promoting other issues to grab the news agenda away from the conway story - at least on the broadcast media.
it was so obvious what their tactics were, i was surprised that not one presenter who interviewed them mentioned the fact that they were trying to drown out the conway story.(they were so well prepared that it looked suspiciously like they were aware of the issue long before it hit the news.)

not only are the public sick and tired of spin, some of us are sick and tired of being treated as fools by cameron who thinks he is far too clever to be rumbled.
gordon is accused of spinning; however, between the two men, i see gordon as more decent and honest.
cameron's cutlured charm makes him sound confident because he just doesn't have a conscience; whereas gordon is wary of answering some questions because he wants to be absolutely sure he can't be picked up on it later - in other words, he does not want to lie, which, ironically, makes him seem like he is spinning when he is being genuine.
cameron is very entertaining and treats pmqs like it like 'celebrity politics', but how will he cope in a crisis when he can't divert attention with jokes and name calling. that is what people have to think about for the future.

[madasafish 16 May 2008 14:15:18]

I think we should congratulate Mr Martin.

His attempts to make MPs look like moneygrubbing scoundrels who do not wish to be accountable are succeeding.

I assume this was the aim of this court case... or was it just a successful attempt to waste more of our money?

[Victor, NW Kent 16 May 2008 14:09:28]

Well, the disgrace of the Speaker opposing transparency on expenses has now ended with a correct court decision. We should all be very, very upset that MPs wish to hide from us what they do with taxpayers money.

A mindset that allows any of them act in such a way is really disturbing.

I ask again, is there not a modern Cromwell that can clean out this Parliament? If not, we may have to rely upon the resurrection of King Arthur as the MPs fiddle whilst our country wastes away.

It must be very distressing for such as Dennis Skinner to find himself in such company - his expenses are by far the lowest of all.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 16 May 2008 13:32:04]

Expenses paid by taxpayers for MPs constituency homes must be made public, accounted for and must be (and seen to be) reasonably spent. The speaker cannot hold the tide of this voters’basic minimum expectation; like King Knut trying to hold the tide from the sea.

Also, certain MPs failing to reveal the addresses of their constituency homes for security reasons? This is a also feeble excuse as:

(1) The addresses of MPs non-constituency homes are known (2) The addresses of MPs surgeries are known (3) MPs routine and route to the House of Parliament are known (4) In any case, why should certain MPs give in to security threats (like terrorism) by not revealing the addresses of their constituency homes?

[Peter, Fife 16 May 2008 13:15:50]

Bloggers and journalists seem to have been operating on the basis that Michael Martin was the only offender and for that matter the only defender; I think that the vast majority of politicians will have abused the system whilst remaining within the guidelines they approved for themselves.

Michael Martin did not raise the case himself, it was the Member's Estimate Committee who forwarded their case to the courts; many MPs will have been hiding in the shadows hoping the Member’s estimate committee were successful; these individuals will now have to defend their own corners.

Let us not forget which MP started this kerfuffle, the disgraced MP Derek Conway, nor should we forget the shady dealings of the Wintertons or the largest expenses claim by Labour minister Shahid Malik, £185,421.

Westminster must have one of the largest troughs in the world considering how many snouts of all colours are in it for their own gain; we should also not forget the three months grace given by a party leader to permit the bodies to be buried in unmarked graves.

Westminster and the majority of MPs who populate it are a monumental disgrace.

[Khalid 16 May 2008 13:06:42]

Sir Joey
Thus far as many an order derived from within the High Court, then in the case of expenses accrued by Mp's it really is a matter based upon the fact that public expenditure is at the heart of accountability.
as for other matters its [Heaven From Here-Robbie Williams] and by that I mean BT. What a load of nonsense!

[Madnurse 16 May 2008 12:59:25]

Given that MPs work or at least, or supposed to work for the people, it seems crazy that their employers (Us) should not know how much we are paying them.

If I went to one of my previous employers before I retired and said that I just wanted to be paid my salary and have my expenses re-inbursed but, I didn't want my employer to know how much I was costing them, they would have told me rightly where to go.

I wonder if we could surcharge those responsible for relentlessly defending this case at our expense, in order for us to be able to get back some of our money that, they have used trying to keep what they've cost us secret.

It seems that, even if there is nothing to hide, there is something fundamentally grubby about this whole episode. I thought this government was going to keep everything transparent and beyond reproach.

[Liz, Suffolk 16 May 2008 12:55:49]

With an "expense" of just over £4000 for his wife's taxi fares, what else has Mr Martin trying to surpress?

Hiding behind the pubication of their constituency addresses is a lame excuse if ever I heard one. We don't want to know where you live, Mr Martin, but we do want to know how you spend OUR money!