Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

"So, why did he - why did they - defraud the public? Only they can answer that but - after many many months of talking to MPs about their expenses - let me hazard a guess.

Most believed they had a system of allowances NOT expenses. They were encouraged by their whips and Commons officials to claim as much as they could to top up a salary held down by governments wary of public disapproval."

Doesn't sound much of an excuse to me Nick. Are you saying it is?

"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." - Hunter S Thompson

"They were encouraged by their whips and Commons officials to claim as much as they could to top up a salary held down by governments wary of public disapproval."

I think the victims of this were somehow unaware of the paradigm shift at the Commons and were caught out.

Either that or these unhappy few are the only ones without powerful friends willing to make unpleasant things go away. But that's politics.

"So, why did he - why did they - defraud the public?"

I'd say it was because they served under a government that forgot that it WAS taxpayer's money. In the same way that it was an endless round of spending of money that seemed to grow on trees, so it would hardly matter if they helped themselves to some of that money from the magic money tree.

By the way, nick, I seem to recall you saying it was a bit of a fuss about nothing, at the time.

Still stick by that analysis?

I think that there is more to Nick's argument than meets the eye and I suspect that many of the Chaytors of this world were given a 'nod and a wink' by senior officials and party colleagues. There should have been a more thorough investigation of this aspect of corruption at Westminster.

In response to AndyC555, I think the point Nick was making was that many were in effect doing the same thing for the same reason, yet the penalties have varied hugely.

So what does "encouraged" really mean?

My wife encourages me to do whatever is necessary not to be fired; my boss encourages me not to claim for expenses I haven't incurred...

Are you saying that MPs were instructed that there would be repercussions for them if they didn't participate in the ethos of claiming expenses that were technically fraudulent? Because, if that's the case then it's the encouragers who should be brought to book.

Or are you saying that the approvers and auditors deliberately turned a blind eye to dodgy claims? Because, if that's the case then it's the encouragers who should be brought to book.

Or are you saying nobody actually checked any of these claims at all, and were therefore implicitly encouraging fraud? Because, if that's the case then it's the encouragers who should be brought to book.

It would have taken a brave MP indeed to be the whistleblower.

It's interesting that the axe falls so randomly. Some MPs, like my ex-MP from within the M25 successfully claimed just less than the maximum allowance of £23k per year in mortgage subsidy on a second home, despite living within commuting distance. He has now retired with his expenses-fuelled gains with not a hint of a stain on his character.

The list of 'winners' and losers is all quite arbitrary and bizarre. There's no sense of justice or the satisfaction of a mess cleaned up.

Nick says that no-one will ever know how many Eric Illsleys there really were.

In fact, it was recorded, there were well over 300 MP's who had their snouts in the trough, from Cameron, Brown, Clegg down.

What has happened here is that only the most blatant cases have been put forward for prosecution.

And if you can possibly get your head around it, the HoC expenses saga pales into insignificance compared to the HoL, where the rules were adroitly changed retrospectively to ensure that outright fraud could not be prosecuted.

These people are a disgrace to democracy.

I agree with neilmurg. It appears that some MPs were given the opportunity to repay what they stole - lets face it, they robbed the tax payer, there's no way these 'intelligent' people didn't know what they were doing - including our current PM, Mr Cameron.

I think it's a disgrace. Perhaps shoplifters and burglars should be given the opportunity to repay what they stole in order to avoid criminal prosecution? It seems only fair, following the expenses scandal.

Amazing that Bankers bring down the financial system throwing the Nation into turmoil. The private sector mess then is given state handouts from the public purse and not a single Banker or financier has been imprisoned.

To my mind MPs are by a trillion miles the lesser of the villans but pay the highest penalty. Perhaps the City now controls the Justice system as well as the Country and the media. MPs were silly rather than wrong they believed the system was based upon allowances rather than expenses.

When will there be investigations into the sale of public assets and tax havens that are bleeding the Nation as we speak. Oh yes its all above board and legal with that lot.

AYE RIGHT.

People have no faith in justice in Britain any longer. Britian is a Country designed to rob the people so the Rich can hoard astronomical amounts of wealth. We should be expelled from the UN so morally corrupt is this country now after 3 decades of faceless finance capitalist greed and wrecklessness.

We are on par with 3rd world corruption. Today they approve of yet more Bonuses while thousands are thrown out of work or suffer cuts due to perverted rightwing ideology that is akin to semi- fascism.

Perhaps a little more careless than the majority who thought that the expenses office were laid back about what was claimed. Perhaps a climate of using expenses to compensate for modest salaries. In the Labour Parliamentary Party there was a culture that it is OK to be a champagne socialist and nothing wrong to make some money. None of which justifies claiming for expenses that were not necessarily incurred in order to carry out the duties of an M.P.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Tonight on the news George referred to the disgraced MP Ilsley as a "victim" of the expenses scandal. He is no victim, he is purely and simply a thief who got caught. I hope he has repaid the £14,500 he stole from the taxpayers of this country. He needs to be kicked out of parliament.
As so many MPs were busy fiddling, there should be a root and branch investigation by the police fraud squad of every single one from the top downwards. That will be the only way to clean up parliament and if it means a general election with some honest candidates, then so be it. There should be no hiding place for anyone.

Money is the root of all evil, and I'm guessing most of it is in the hands of your friends aka Mr Cameron & Co. We'll never know the real truth of how many blues, reds and yellows that had their hand in the till! And we have to trust them with the security of the nation, unfortuately there are many forms of being economical with the truth!

The allowance system stated that it was to enable them to carry out their duties as an M.P. Since when has wooden decking been a tool?
If they did not understand the wording they should not have been in the House of Commons in the first place.

They are even trying to replace the system that was put in place after the scandal.

No wonder the country is in debt, obviously they cannot read or understand rules.

Question

Whats the difference between HOC the HOL and GB's

Answer

HOC & HOL round it up to the nearest thousand$ and RB's to the nearest millon$

Milliband, Cameron, et al would do well to hold their tongues about who should and shouldn't quit because of their expenses claims.

Not a single one of them wanted the public to find out about dodgy cleaning services, wisteria removal, duck islands, moat dredging or any other of the ludicrous things these jobsworths claimed for.

If I had my way they'd all be in the dock - one after the other on the charge of theft in public office, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and any other criminal act that the state would levy at us all if we were found to be avoiding paying tax or defrauding the state.

MP's guilty of false claims are just as guilty as those who made the "poor choice" of claims. Blears! A cheque for £13,000 to the HMRC and all was forgotten! Who can even afford to pay out that kind of sum in a oner!?

That's the REAL disgrace.

I read this, and then was very suprised to realise that it was repeated on PM.

Pretty boring if you ask me.

This MP and any others who stole from the public should be locked up.

Greed and an overdeveloped sense of entitlement reigned supreme with so
many MPs,and in that climate who was going to stop making false expenses
claims? It became the norm,just one more perk to be enjoyed at taxpayers
expense.

Is the new system fit for purpose? Is it fair? I dont know but there is the rumble of grumbling about IPSA.

I have no sympathy with the MPs who have been found out and hope that a few more get their collar felt.

The cheating and fraud by our elected representatives is despicable, and those convicted deserve complete humiliation. Democracy is delicate enough without being trampled upon. But we are indeed all to blame, none less than the press. The newspapers are happy to scream every time paying MPs the reward they deserve for leading the country, and we the people enjoy the spectacle, so of course the back door method has been used. Rightly, we should put the then party leaders and their whips under the microscope; then we all should seriously reflect on what price we should expect to pay to enjoy proper, honest, dedicated leadership.

"It would have taken a brave MP indeed to be the whistleblower." (post no. 7)

We elect MPs as our lawmakers and it is not unreasonable to expect the highest level of integrity. Sadly there are too few of them that possess that quality particularly at the highest levels. There are too many gutless wimps who will opt for the cushy life and self interest rather than serving the public as they are employed to do.

I can't find fault with any of Gary Hay's comments but would add that the Cameron/Clegg promise of a new kind of politics that would restore respect for MPs has not happened and nor will it. We will always have deception, lies and lots of spin.

@22

"...it is not unreasonable to expect the highest level of integrity."

True, but it seems we're naive if we DO expect it these days. I guess most would-be MPs simply assume that their electors will vote on party lines, regardless of their own personal integrity. How else did Uncle Eric get the nod in the last election? Miners' champion? True, but that's still got nowt to do with his personal ethics.

In other words, as long as you can get yourself selected as the candidate, your integrity is apparently irrelevant.

It is a matter of National shame to see a British MP being jailed for fraud. However, it demonstrates that the rule of law still holds sway on these islands. Or does it? It will not have escaped the publics' attention that it is only the waifs and strays of the House of Commons who have been brought to book. The 'establishment' fraudsters and those who have stolen the largest sums, appear to have escaped the short arm of the law. Let us be under no illusion, until every single act of theft and fraud amongst all members of the Upper and Lower Houses are charged and tried in a court of law, there will be no line drawn under this ugly affair.

It wasn't just Nick who said it was a fuss about nothing, there was a certain S. Fry who popped up to say much the same thing and added: "aren't we all at it?" Hmm, makes you think.
Regards, etc.

Why do they do it ? Because one thing politicians have in common is an inherent dishonesty, this is what drives them to be politicians in the first place. They join the Tory party if they've got somebody pulling their strings, and if they haven't, they join the Labour party where a modicum of education sets them above the rank and file and is the gateway to riches. Why they join the Lib Dems, God alone knows. None of them, however much they plead otherwise become politicians to serve anyone other than themselves, since , in the main they are greedy, egocentric and deceitful, which is the prime requirement for the job. The fact that so many members of parliament are members of the Law profession speaks for itself, a profession where truth and integrity take second place to expediency and self interest is prime training for politics.

Assumption is the mother of all .................... !

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I have been able to claim expenses in numerous jobs over 33 years of employment. In all cases my claims have had to be backed by receipts for items required for my work away from home.

If I had broken this simple rule each of my employers would have sacked me. In each case if I had known colleagues were on the fiddle, I would have reported them and expected them to be disciplined.

Why is Nick Robinson, like so many MPs themselves, suggesting that MPS are different and may have been justified in thinking they could get away with theft? Nick, please reenter the real world of the 60,000,000 Britons outside Westminster!

Nick, you are absolutely right to say that "most believed they had a system of allowances NOT expenses." When Ken Livingstone spoke to a "Lessons in Government" seminar in Oxford (which you yourself have appeared at), he made the claim that when he was an MP, Labour whips encouraged members who were not making use of their second home allowance to use it and then donate it to the Labour Party. If true, not only would this be bigger than the current expenses scandal (imagine if Illsley had made the false claims to get money for donations to the Labour Party...), but it would underline the fact that certain expenses rights were seen as top-ups to MPs' salaries.

"Why did MPs make false expenses claims?"
"They were encouraged by their whips and Commons officials to claim as much as they could "

Just because someone tells you to commit a crime, that doesn't mean you automatically do it.

They are responsible for their own actions, they can't just blame it on a "culture".

Do you, Nick, know of any situation in the private sector when a valid defence to stealing money from your boss's desk and spending it on a new tv for your house is "the bloke sitting at the desk next to me told me everyone's nicking money from the boss's desk, so go I'd just for it if I were you" ?

Please stop making excuses for these people; it's fraud/corruption plain and simple.

"Why did MPs make false expenses claims?" - they did so because they thought they could get away with it and they wanted to steal the extra money for personal gain.

Despite the pro-labour Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú spin on labour members going to jail for fraud, I still don't believe that this was just a "culture" and that all those labour MPs were innocent.

2 Labour MPs have admitted deliberate and calculated fraud on a large scale against the tax payer. One's already gone to jail. Please stop spinning this with the "they were only following orders" labour spin, because that spin is absolutely abhorrent, especially when the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú itself is a tax-payer funded organisation.

26. Well, we aren't all at it, are we? Take any workplace you've known. Chances are you know some people who fiddle there expenses - and a lot who don't. I wouldn't vote for any one who did. Sadly, the only ones who seem to feel the urge to climb that greasy pole are the ones that do.

It is my understanding that when MP's sign their expenses, they make a declaration that the expense has been incurred "wholly and necessarily" in order for them to perform their duties as an MP. As lots of the claims were obviously not "wholly and necessary", then in my view they are guilty for fraud, including the ones that paid the money back (an admission of guilt if ever there was one!!).

I doubt that many of them can spell Honourable - they certainly don't deserve to be addressed as such!!

I think Nick has provided a very plausible explanation. That doesn't mean to say it is an endorsement!

You can see how it would have developed. MP #1 persuades the expenses office that they should be recompensed for the cost of, say, a collapsible bicycle, and then all the other MPs start thinking "well if he/she got that, I don't see why I shouldn't too". Add in an expenses office that probably felt it was unlikely to receive much support for turning down claims in the grey area, and it's all a downwards slippery slope from then on.

We all have to be a bit careful about how we might respond in a similar situation - don't we want the same as others in similar circumstances? The difficulty is no-one seems to have publicly challenged how things operated until the Telegraph (and others) broke the substantive story.

So why some MPs prosecuted and others not?

Claiming for repairs to your moat may have been an abuse of the expenses system, but at least it was tangible and no doubt there was paperwork to support the "claim". Paying the money back will have got them off the hook. An MP making this kind of claim would argue in court that the claims were made in good faith (even though it's a pig in the trough kind of claim)

However inventing expenditure is impossible to argue your way out of. And those are the ones who will end up before m'lud and will be reading up on how to make post-bags.

Having worked in large concerns for a number of years I have come across more than the odd instance of 'we're all in it together, don't spoil it for the majority', if it's only adding a couple of hours on an overtime sheet, a few miles on the mileage, taking home those 'perks'. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the situation is to stay firmly outside of those areas, even if you're thought of as a spoil sport. Of course, there are instances where people have failed to get promoted because they don't go along with the mild corruption of their peers and bosses. It's no excuse, but it's how it happens, and it will always happen. I've no doubt that there are many 'important' MPs who are just as guilty. It can't only be those we've never heard of, can it?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This chap was elected AFTER the scandal? Words fail to describe how shocked I am.
Other commentaters talk about the consequences of false claims in their jobs and that is entirely appropriate. Others are talking about this reaffirming the rule of law for anyone - and by extension the UK is this great place where anyone is below the law (so the Royal Family.....)
There seems to be a schism between the public and private sectors when it comes to expenses where the consequences are summary if found out.
On the other hand, the MP's who have been 'caught out' thusfar are not of the duck moat society. And they have all claimed, as in the article, that incurring the expenses was encouraged in lieu of the 'unsatisfactory' salary!
How many of the indignant and appalled wouldn't do the same ?

As a civil servant I have my expenses claims checked in detail even though supported by receipts and was once asked for an exoplanation why I travelled an extra 8 miles on a 200 mile journey. Roadworks!

As a former member of internal security I helped gather information which supported the disciplining of staff members for (very) minor breaches of expenses rules and for prosecution for serious expense breaches.

My department prosecutes members of the public who breach the rules both concerning expenses and other claims.

I did get one perk. I got a day off when one of the cabinet ministers decided to hold an open forum in our office and we were asked to submit questions to him. My question was "How can you justify prosecuting staff and members of the public when you claimed many thousands of pounds in wrongful expenses and were not even demoted, just asked to pay it back".

Why was I given a day off?

So another day and another dirty MP finally holds-up his hands. MPs from all sides were of course fiddling the system. But it is particularly hypocritical of Labour MPs - who claimed to represent the poorest of the poor.

That this has also happened on the same day that the hooligan student who threw the fire-extinguisher off of Millbank tower also got a 32 month jail sentence is further good news.

Finally justice is catching up with these scum bags.

...For the same reason that Bankers can pay themselves huge bonuses whilst offering poor returns to depositors and charging anybody with an overdraft ridiculous fees...

Because they are allowed the opportunity to do so, because they are not sufficiently regulated...!

"This comment has been referred for further consideration"

So I assume Jacqui Smith's claims are off limits then? Maybe mentioning them isn't in line with the "all labour MPs who have perpetrated fraud are unwilling innocent victims of a system setup by tories" Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú spin.

Random batches of MPs expenses should be subject to checking, by voluteers from Taxpayers Alliance or constituency voters. Any that can't justify what they have claimed should be banned from claiming for a year.

#39

Were you paid for the day off?

#41

So you don't subscribe to the "us and them" model that's becoming a local fixture in the minds of the proletariat... *ahem* I mean ordinary folk.

24. At 7:02pm on 11 Jan 2011, KaptainKaption wrote:

@22

"...it is not unreasonable to expect the highest level of integrity."

True, but it seems we're naive if we DO expect it these days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In truth, I think you're right, but having said that, we should DEMAND it.

Taking this particular candidate as an example, he was sniffed out as a bad 'un last year, before the election. Yet, despite this, despite he himself KNOWING he was guilty, he was still nominated as the constituency MP, the local party and the PLP must have had a notion that there was a whiff about it - he himself knew what he did - and yet, despite that, he still not only stood as an MP, but, heaven forbid, he flippin' won the seat as well! Where was the integrity demanded by the constituents of Barnsley Central?

There wasnt any. Voting along purely tribal lines. It didnt matter that the candidate was a crook who was already under suspicion and under investigation. He tried to get off the hook citing parliamentary privilege - why would you do that unless you were trying to hide what you had done? - and yet, the party still allowed him to stand and the mug punters voted for a candidate who was a crook, purely because of the colour of the rosette he was wearing.

These fools deserve everything they got. If they dont demand integrity, if they dont throw out/not vote for someone who short of being convicted was known to be dodgy, then they're not going to get anyone with any integrity.

Thats the only way you're going to break the power of the current triumvarate. Dont vote for them. Dont let them just harvest your votes on tribal lines. Make them shape their policies around what you want, be it social justice, equality, higher bonuses and less taxes, exit from the EU, save the whales or whatever. If it means electing independent candidates, then do it. Might mean that nothing gets done for five years, but by christ, you'd only need to do it the once. They'd soon pay attention after that.

39#

So what was the answer you were given to the question apart from "Ah. Yes.. Er..."

11. At 6:14pm on 11 Jan 2011, Norman Brooke wrote:
Amazing that Bankers bring down the financial system throwing the Nation into turmoil. The private sector mess then is given state handouts from the public purse and not a single Banker or financier has been imprisoned.

To my mind MPs are by a trillion miles the lesser of the villans but pay the highest penalty.
=========================================================================
The only difference is that the first were just incompetent and the second were incompetent and dishonest.

"Why did MPs make false expenses claims?"

Why do people shoplift? Why do people rob banks?

To enrich themselves.

"We expect the highest level of integrity from our MPs" interesting, I thought we didn't actually. I don't believe the great British public would have cared very much about the expenses of MPs had the economy not failed. After all they continued to vote for Blair after many poor moral judgements, such as going to war on false data and many more issues. I would have thought the death of soldiers was much more important than the lose of a few quid from taxpayers money, hey but maybe I am wrong. Brown brought Britain down by spending too much of our money and I understand he will still get a good pension.

I also understand that we lose a good deal of taxpayers money through false claims in the benefit system. When these people are caught very little punishment is given and we never see the money again.

I am not going hang this guy, I understand he was a very good MP, his life is ruined. I wonder if he truely knew the consequences of what he was doing. Integrity I wonder when that word came back into fashion in Britain, it has been missing for a fair number of years throughout the UK including the public. One has to ask how long it will last if it exists at all.

Chris London 48

The bankers did not bring Britain down, by repeating a myth, it does not make it so. Gordon Brown brough the UK to its knees by Government overspend and lack of regulation in our financial sector. Brown very much encouraged the banks to lend too much and was warned 29 times by the FSA, the organisation he set up himself, that the banks were in trouble. Brown ignored this in order to keep spending, building up deficits year on year in our economy. The EU themselves warned Brown he was spending too much.

The financial sector was the only sector doing well and keeping Britain afloat during the Labour years, otherwise the recession would have come much earlier.

Not all banks behaved badly, but I suppose like everything, blanket blame is the name of the game by thoughtless people.

Britain will only learn when it is too late, and the Golden Goose has left the UK. After yesterday if I were Barclays I would be gone sooner rather than later.

Still like to know why Alan Johnson used to claim £400 food allowance on expenses.Anyone know?

14. At 6:23pm on 11 Jan 2011, lavendarlady25 wrote:
Tonight on the news George referred to the disgraced MP Ilsley as a "victim"..."

One presumes its a matter of perspective depending from where the referrer is looking. But interesting for all that.

Understandable, if not laudable. Especially for a news medium in theory representative of those who fund it, as opposed to those who are merely in a temporary position to manage the manner. And manna.

51. At 10:28am on 12 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
=========================================================================
If you had read my previous entries you would know that I do not lay the blame for our current position at the feet of the bankers. However there are those in that profession who were a little less proficient than they should have been IE incompetent. Their positions really on them assessing and managing risk. Many just saw what they thought was too good a thing to miss. They also knew that if they risk failed it would not be them who would carry the can as they would have had the cash in the bank by then.

Yes our politicans let us down with their managing of our economy and they were dishonest if they claimed expenses they were not entitled to. We also can take a share of the blame for we all as I have said before basked in the cheap credit and lived the good life off a property bubble that was never going to be sustainable. Also the financiers need to step up to the plate for their actions and conduct all be it within the law.

So to conclude the bankers did not put us in our current position but they did help push us down the slippery slope.....

52. At 10:45am on 12 Jan 2011, telecasterdave wrote:
Still like to know why Alan Johnson used to claim £400 food allowance on expenses.Anyone know?
=========================================================================
Because he could.

What I find amusing is that a number of MP's have justified the expenses shame because they were not getting pay rises to set an example to us the public.

So if you do not get a pay rise it is OK to rip off your employer for that is what they did to us their employer.

56#

Not to mention them getting the hump about bonuses and salaries in the city having certain elastic properties, eh Chris? They're as bad as each other.

"56. At 11:28am on 12 Jan 2011, Chris London wrote:
What I find amusing is that a number of MP's have justified the expenses shame because they were not getting pay rises to set an example to us the public."

Indeed. I wonder if a shopkeeper could try that with HMRC? "Well, I haven't made any more profits this year than last so I decided to just start taking money out the till rather than record it as takings"

"Why did MPs make false expenses claims"? is the title of Nick Robinson's blog.

If a Labour ex-minister could claim for his private swimming pool pump maintenance/repairs and a pair of pool sliders - one wonders why?

MPs and MEPs earn a very good salary - ministers earn considerably more.

Independently wealthy MPs/MEPs can claim the same allowances as those without other incomes.

Therefore, is it not time that these tax-payer funded allowances were means-tested? Or, perhaps this question, should at least be asked and it's moral issue be debated in The House?

This is a fascinating comment on how 'expenses' were perceived by MPs, and a shameful con to the public who believed their salaries were as disclosed. It makes a lot of sense when you view the 'expenses' as an allowance (aka. a hidden, tax-free salary bung) and how incompetent the approval system looked at first sight.
I can sympathise in one sense: that it was pushed like a drug, and was in effects 'part of your salary' - only by the backdoor. Where I can't sympathise and find it completely unacceptable is that this went on, was never whistle-blown - and this from some 650 or so people who amongst them represent leaders, lawyers, doctors, senior business people, and 'upstanding' members of our society. They should have all been removed, because as extreme as it sounds they all acted like Nazis in a concentration camp - following one another like sheep, only 'doing as they were told'.
The oligarchy of 650 (cf. 70 million citizens 650 IS small) that hides behind democracy will continue unabated. Unashamed. A shameful situation. Nuremberg 2 I would welcome very much indeed...

60 "I can sympathise in one sense: that it was pushed like a drug, and was in effects 'part of your salary' - only by the backdoor."

For that to be worthy of my sympathy, I'd like an MP to explain why what they were doing was 'sort of OK' while at the same time they were screeching about tax evasion and (worse still) saying that tax avoidance was somehow morally wrong and everyone somehow had a 'duty' to pay the maximum amount of tax they possibly could.

So, to Mr Robinson, if you intend to continue with this 'sympathy' line could you put that point to a few MPs?

Why does Nick continue to repeat the line that MPs were encouraged to make false or exaggerated claims by Commons officials? Is it because they cannot answer back?

Who is feeding him this line? It's mighty convenient if you ask me.

What an MP might have been told twenty or more years ago doesn't mean that the same rules or standards were still in place in 2007 or thereabouts.

MPs could claim only for costs incurred in the course of their work. They were required to set out honestly their costs and these were reimbursed according to rules. But the system relied too much on trust. This trust was badly broken by a number of MPs.

52. At 10:45am on 12 Jan 2011, telecasterdave wrote:
"Still like to know why Alan Johnson used to claim £400 food allowance on expenses.Anyone know?"

-----------------

When I was looking through the 'redacted', published expenses documents(posted here on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News site if I remember correctly), one thing that struck me was that of the very many that I looked at before I nodded off, every single MP had claimed the full food allowance of £400 pm.

"63. At 2:24pm on 12 Jan 2011, Its_an_Outrage wrote:
52. At 10:45am on 12 Jan 2011, telecasterdave wrote:
"Still like to know why Alan Johnson used to claim £400 food allowance on expenses.Anyone know?"

-----------------

When I was looking through the 'redacted', published expenses documents(posted here on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News site if I remember correctly), one thing that struck me was that of the very many that I looked at before I nodded off, every single MP had claimed the full food allowance of £400 pm."

I must admit, I struggle to see why having two homes means you need to eat twice as much.

Even though Prescott and Pickles both add....er...weight to the argument that this might be necessary.

Part of the explanation is that these MPs were only doing what they believed correctly that many others, not just MPs, were doing.

Their behaviour is probably quite typical of what goes on throughout the UK, in private as well as public areas. There are unfortunately a large number of people who will cheat if they think they can get away with it.