Events | 2010.02.04
Live: MPs' expenses reports in House of Commons
Coverage throughout the day with Andrew Sparrow as expenses reports are published and new figures on allowances released
1.10pm: Norman Smith on the World at One has just pointed out that one MP, Labour\'s Mike Gapes, was ordered to repay just 40p.
Originally Legg said that he should repay £186.89 because he submitted a council tax bill late. Gapes appealed, and Kennedy accepted the appeal. But Kennedy only reduced the amount by £186.49, because Gapes overclaimed by 40p as a result of a "clerical error". The report says that 40p has now been repaid.
1.06pm: Will the taxpayer save money from the Legg process? No. Legg says that his review cost £1.16m. The total amount repayable as a result of his recommendations is £1.12m.
12.48pm: Here\'s a link to the standards and privileges committee report into Anne Main.
12.46pm: I haven\'t had time to look at the standards and privileges committee report into the Tory MP Anne Main yet. But someone at PA is on the case. They\'ve just snapped this.
Conservative MP for St Albans Anne Main was today told to repay £7,100 and apologise in writing after an investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner into her second home allowance claims.
12.42pm: I\'m not particularly impressed by Legg\'s attempts to track down Ivor Caplin. If you put his name into Google , the third item to come up is a link to Foresight Consulting, which declares on its website that former Labour defence minister Ivor Caplin is a senior consultant. I\'ve just tried giving them a ring. No one is picking up the phone.
12.33pm: Those Kennedys in full.
In response to a comment from HopefuJ below, I can see that I need to clarify something. There are two Kennedys with knighthood invovled in this process.
Sir Paul Kennedy is the former judge who was asked to consider appeals from MPs complaining they were treated unfairly by Legg.
Sir Ian Kennedy is chairman of Ipsa, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. He is not involved in today\'s events, but Ipsa is taking charge of MPs\' pay and expenses and so he will soon become the parliamentary paymaster.
12.28pm: A colleague has been looking at the figures for total expense claims in 2008-09. Total claims cost the taxpayer £95.6m, up 3% from the previous year. But, interestingly, the amount spent on the second home allowance was £10.5m, down 9% on the figure for the previous year. That\'s partly because the rules were tightened. But it may also reflect the fact that MPs started to exercise restraint after the Daily Telegraph launched its onslaught.
12.16pm: The Legg report names two former MPs who have not replied to "a number of letters" sent to them at the address held by the Commons authorities. They are the former Labour MPs Ivor Caplin and John Lyons.
Legg says that, because he has not seen evidence justifying their mortgage interest claims, they should repay the all the money they claimed - £17,865 in the case of Caplin and £18,780 in the case of Lyons.
Two other former Labour MPs have been asked to repay substantial sums. Ian Gibson has been asked for £16,025, because he claimed for a flat he was sharing with his daughter. Diana Organ has been asked for £15,964 because she did not provide Legg with information to justify her mortgage interest claims.
12.00pm: In his report, Legg includes a breakdown of the types of expense overpayments he has identified. Here are the figures:
Mortgage/rent claims - 208 excessive payments, worth £711,000
Cleaning claims - 56 excessive payments, worth £105,000
Service/maintenance - 52 excessive payments, worth £81,000
Repairs/insurance/security - 24 excessive payments, worth £73,000
Council tax/rates - 59 excesive payments, worth £35,000
Telephone and communications - 35 excessive payments, worth £23,000
Food - 12 excessive payments, worth £12,000
Utilities - 30 excessive payments, worth £10,000
Hotel stays - 7 excessive payments, worth £4,000
Other claims - 182 excessive payments, worth £252,000
These figures do not include the cases where Sir Paul Kennedy upheld an appeal and either reduced or scrapped the demand for a repayment.
11.54am: This is what Downing Street said this morning about today\'s report:
The PM feels very strongly that this is one part of restoring trust in the way our political institutions have been operating and continue to operate.
11.47am: Lord Mandelson has been ordered to repay £800 for excessive gardening costs. Mandelson needed to spend the money because an overgrowing tree was threatening to bring down his neighour\'s wall. As my colleague Severin Carrell pointed out at the time, this seemed to come straight out of the plot of Armando Iannucci\'s In the Loop.
11.43am: Here\'s a link to the table published by parliament showing details of event and function bookings made by MPs on behalf of outside organisations between 2004 and 2009. It\'s 255 pages long.
11.38am: Although Barbara Follett was ordered to repay the most, her Labour colleague Phil Hope seems to be the MP who has repaid the most.
Legg asked him to repay £4,366. But he voluntarily repaid £42,674.
11.29am: Legg appears to criticise Michael Martin, the former Speaker. In his foreword to the report, he says officials in the Commons fees office were "vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down".
Here is the full quote.
Alongside those problems, the authority and legitimacy of the fees office was much less than seems to have been realised by most MPs at the time. These officials were not civil servants with an independent duty to, and accountability for, the public purse. They were servants of the House and, while of course supposed to observe and apply its rules, they were also in practice expected to do so in the ways most beneficial to the MPs whom they were there to serve. The CSPL report has spoken of a \'culture of deference\', and my own view over the years, on the audit committee and conducting this review, has been that this expression is justified.The fees office was therefore vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down, and of individual MPs. In practice during most of the review period, these influences tended more towards looking after the immediate interests of MPs than to safeguarding propriety in public expenditure.
11.25am: Here\'s the Press Association on Peter Lilley persuading Kennedy to reject completely Legg\'s demand that he should have to repay £41,057.
Former cabinet minister Peter Lilley (Con, Hitchen and Harpenden) had a demand for £41,057.36 from Sir Thomas overturned in its entirety on appeal.
Mr Lilley purchased his second home in 2003 using a loan from his wife, replacing that arrangement in 2005 with a joint loan. Sir Thomas ordered him to repay the amounts claimed for mortgage interest following that change, arguing the new loan "appears to have released capital, which was not permitted under the ACA other than for the purpose of improving or repairing the home".
But Sir Paul Kennedy ruled Mrs Lilley\'s loan was effectively a "bridging loan", as the couple were initially unable to use a mortgage to buy their second home because the seller wanted an immediate cash offer. The subsequent change was therefore not an "additional" mortgage - which would have been banned under the rules - but a first mortgage on the property.
Sir Paul said he found Mr Lilley\'s appeal "compelling", adding: "I am at a loss to understand why the review should state that what you did was not permitted."
11.14am: Some MPs have had to repay money because they could not provide the paperwork to justift their claims. For example, Paul Clark, a transport minister, has been ordered to repay £11,407 because Legg ruled that his mortgage interest payments were "invalid" because Clark could not provide the evidence to justify them.
MPs like Clark will have some explaining to do to their constituents.
I\'ve just emailed Clark and left a message on his office answerphone. I\'ll let you know if I hear a reply.
11.01am: An hour after publication of the Legg report and the Kennedy report, where do we stand? Here are three preliminary observations.
• Anyone who thought MPs had already endured the worst was wrong. This report contains information from an auditor appointed by parliament that - fairly or unfairly - could be used to damage the reputation of around half of all sitting MPs. Some of the detail is extraordinary and new. (See 10.20am and 10.29am) It is hard to see how this won\'t become an issue in dozens of local election campaigns.
• The whole thing is a horrendous muddle. Parliament appointed two investigators - and they disagree with each other. (See 10.37am and 10.45am)
• Some of the worse abuses aren\'t covered. Legg does not seem to have touched those MPs whose claims have been investigated by the police. This may be seen as a weakness.
10.59am: MPs who have not already repaid money have until February 22 to cough up. Here\'s a statement from the members estimate committee.
The MEC expects that as a key part of that process any MP who has been identified by Sir Thomas as having received an overpayment will (subject to the appeal decisions) repay or make arrangements to repay those sums by February 22. However, the MEC will support a resolution in the House to authorise the recovery from salaries and other allowance payments of any sums outstanding after that date.
10.56am: Some more figures from the Kennedy report: 75 MPs submitted appeals, and 44 of the appeals were wholly or partially upheld.
10.51am: Turning away from Legg for a moment, here is a link to the other expenses data being published by parliament today.
The Tories are going through this carefully. Henry Macrory, the Conservative party\'s head of press, has just put this on Twitter.
Exes latest: Ed Balls paid Brown\'s former press officer – Fiona Gordon - £4,000 in exes in 08/09
10.45am: This is the full quote from Kennedy explaining his doubts about the Legg process.
I entirely understand why in 2006 Parliament found it necessary to change the rules, but I am particularly troubled by the suggestion that a transaction entered into before that date, which was disclosed to the Fees Office, was apparently genuine, and was evidenced in writing, should now be described as tainted and, for the purposes of ACA, wholly invalid; or as having "breached the requirement of propriety" (Review executive summary paragraph 24). I recognise that in paragraph 37 the author of the Review says that his conclusions and recommendations "imply no reflections on the conduct or motives of individual MPs", but the situation is not, as suggested, analogous to an under‐payment of tax or an over‐payment of social security benefits. Such errors are usually put right without any publicity. The ACA Review is, at least in part, the result of enormous publicity, and will no doubt generate further publicity when it is published. Against that background it seems to me that to describe any apparently genuine transaction as tainted, or breaching the requirement of propriety, when there is no evidence of impropriety, is damaging, unfair and wrong. Of course I recognise that transactions between close associates may not be what they appear to be, and can be used by one or both parties to obtain ACA to which they are not really entitled, but that only leads me to conclude that when relied upon such transactions should be carefully examined, and that is what I have tried to do.
10.37am: I\'ve just been looking at the Sir Paul Kennedy report, which has been published towards the end of the main report.
Kennedy is very critical of the suggestion that some of the claims deemed unreasonable by Legg are now "tainted". He says this is "damaging, unfair and wrong", he says.
10.29am: A colleague has just pointed out that the Tory MP Anthony Steen claimed for "a flagpole rope and binding"!
Steen, who is standing down, was ordered to repay a total of £11,211.
10.27am: Here is a link to the full report.
10.25am: This is from the Press Association.
The largest sums ordered to be repaid by sitting MPs - after appeals are taken into account - were £42,458 by Barbara Follett (Lab, Stevenage), £36,909 by Bernard Jenkin (Con, North Essex), £31,193 by Andrew Mackay (Con, Bracknell), £29,398 by John Gummer (Con, Suffolk Coastal), £29,243 by Julie Kirkbride (Con, Bromsgrove) and £24,878 by Liam Fox (Con, Woodspring).
10.20am: Barbara Follett, the Labour MP married to the millionaire author Ken Follett, is the MP ordered to repay £42,458. She has already repaid £33,000 and £9,000 is outstanding.
She has been ordered to pay money back because she claimed:
• £34,776 for mobile security patrols at her home. This went beyond the rules saying only basic security measures were allowed.
• £8,908 for six telephone lines at her home.
• £2,813 for an additional insurance premium for fine art.
She also claimed a double payment for boiler insurance and for pest control at a home that was not her designated second home.
10.14am: Here is Legg on how the system worked:
The ACA [additional costs allowance - the second home payment] was deeply flawed. In particular, the rules were vague, and MPs were themselves self-certifiying as to the propriety of their use of the allowance. Taken with the prevailing lack of transparency and the "culture of deference", this meant that the fees office\'s decisions lacked legitimacy; and many of them were in fact mistaken.
10.10am: Two observations from me before we go:
• The amount ordered to be repaid is almost exactly the same as the figure given by Commons officials for the cost of the Legg exercise - £1.2m. Funny that, isn\'t it.
• Some £400,000 has still not been repaid. Why? Don\'t know yet.
10.08am: More details:
• Legg originally ordered that just over £1.3m should be repaid, out of the £55.5m spent on MPs\' expenses between April 2004 and March 2009.
• Some £800,000 has already been repaid.
• 52% of the 752 MPs and former MPs considered were ordered to repay money. 48% were not asked to repay.
10.03am: Here are some key stats:
• Three MPs were ordered to repay more than £40,000, with Legg ordering the highest repayment of just under £65,000. But Sir Paul Kennedy reduced that. The highest repayment is now £42,458.
• 56 MPs were ordered to repay between £40,000 and £5,000.
• 182 Mps were ordered to repay between £5,000 and £1,000.
• 149 MPs were ordered to repay between £1,000 and £100.
• Sir Paul Kennedy\'s decisions have reduced repayments by just under £185,000 (14%), taking the total amount repaid to £1.12m.
10.02am: It\'s huge: 237 pages. Just starting to look at it now.
9.55am: I want to read a hard copy of the report, so I\'m off to the Commons vote office now, where they will be handing out copies at 10am. I\'ll start putting the highlights up here asap.
9.53am: Confused about all those sleaze watchdogs? Nick Robinson has posted a useful blog explaining the difference between Sir Thomas, Sir Paul and Sir Christopher.
9.49am: The new Politics Home "Pro" service (to which I\'ve been given me a free trial subscriptions - for which, many thanks) has put up this, from Norman Baker at the end of the Today programme. Baker, the Lib Dem MP, thinks Bell is wrong about expenses not being an election issue.
It\'s going to drag into the election campaign and after it ... The MPs who complain will get no sympathy from the public.
9.36am: Will expenses be an issue in the election campaign? Sir Stuart Bell, the Labour MP who sits on the members estimate committee, thinks not. This is what he told the Today programme:
The expenses system will fall away in a general election campaign. Our hope is it can be put behind us so the parties can fight the election on the issues, on what really matters to the public.
But he might be being optimistic. Today\'s report from Legg will provide useful ammunition to candidates fighting sitting MPs who have had to repay money. The MPs will (mostly) be entitled to say that they did not break the rules. But their opponents will be able to say that they submitted claims that were excessive, or unreasonable, or unacceptable. And - for the first time - they will be able to say that an official appointed by parliament has made this judgment, not just the Daily Telegraph.
9.31am: Nick Clegg did a doorstep this morning too. Sky has just shown the footage. Clegg said today\'s report would "confirm people\'s anger" about the expenses affair and remind them of the "appalling, dismal, petty, unforgiveable errors that were made". But he also said he hoped that this would "draw a line" under the affair.
9.28am: We now live in an age where MPs can perform "rebuttal by Twitter". I\'ve just spotted this , from Julie Morgan, the Labour MP for Cardiff North.
I paid back for inadvertent overclaim on mortgage interest. Didn\'t dispute, altho\' over 5 yrs Legg looked at, I had actually underclaimed.
9.26am: Here\'s a link to the parliament website . The Legg report and the other documents being published today should be here at 10am. I\'ll put up a more direct link as soon as I get on.
9.19am: David Cameron did what they call a "doorstep" (a quick statement to the television cameras) as he was leaving his home this morning. He said the Commons should use the crisis to build "a parliament that people can be proud of" and to show that MPs are not just "a bunch of ciphers".
He also said that he was the first party leader to take a "strong stand" on expenses and that any MP who refuses to repay money should have it clawed back from his or her salary or resettlement grant.
8.57am: The controversy about MPs\' expenses erupted in May last year when the Daily Telegraph started publishing the full details of claims that the parliamentary authorities were trying to keep secret. Today, in the words of John Bercow in the Times , we will witness "the last remaining reels of a particularly grisly horror movie" when Sir Thomas Legg publishes a report naming the 350-odd MPs who have been ordered to repay a total of more than £1m because their claims were deemed unacceptable.
The report is out at 10am. I\'ll be covering it here.
But, although the Legg report will be the highlight, there is also an extraordinary amount of expenses-related news happening today. We\'ve also got:
• The publication of the report from Sir Paul Kennedy, the former judge who was given the power to hear appeals from MPs unhappy about Legg\'s verdict (at 10am).
• The publication of a list showing how much MPs have repaid (at 10am).
• The publication of expenses data for all MPs for 2008-09 apart from data relating to second homes, which has been published already (at 10am).
• The publication of information showing how many times MPs have booked rooms in the House of Commons on behalf of outside bodies (at 10am).
• Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, giving evidence to the Commons public administration committee (at 10am).
• Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, answering questions in the Commons (at 11.30am).
• The publication of a standards and privileges committee report into Tory MP Anne Main (at 11am).
I\'ll be blogging all the developments throughout the day. It should be quite a day.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/[...]04/mps-expenses-houseofcommons
Instagram is adding automatic in-app text translation - The Verge views: 1530
Here’s a ‘Brand-New’ Massive Multilingual Dataset for Machine Translation views: 1527