This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spiritofsussex (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 10 May 2009 (→References). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:22, 10 May 2009 by Spiritofsussex (talk | contribs) (→References)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The MPs' Expenses controversies is the battle over release of information regarding the expenses claimed by UK Members of Parliament, and the subsequent controversy and reaction when details of expenses claims have been released. Starting in January 2005, journalist Heather Brooke made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for details of MP's expenses claims, which eventually led to the Information Commissioner ordering the release of some information on 15 June 2007. This instruction was objected to by MPs, who the month before had voted on a bill that would exempt them from Freedom of Information laws. This bill was subsequently defeated in the House of Lords. A Freedom of Information Tribunal ruled in February 2008 that parliament had to release information on 14 MPs, but this was subsequently appealed against at the last minute. The High Court subsequently ruled on 16 May 2008 that the expenses should be revealed and on 23 May the details were made public. A motion to exempt parliament from aspects of the Freedom of Information Act was finally dropped on 21 January 2009, and details of all MPs expenses claims were due to be published on 1 July. However The Daily Telegraph acquired detailed information, which had supposedly been touted around various newspapers, and started publishing details on 8 May. The Telegraph justified the use of this material, as it contended that the information due to be released would have omitted key information about MPs switching their second-home nominations.
In March 2008, the John Lewis List was released, which gave guidelines on what MPs could claim for, based on prices in department store John Lewis. Throughout the ongoing legal battles regarding the release of information, there have been a variety of exposes regarding individual MP's expenses claims. Derek Conway employed and paid his son over £40,000 whilst he was at university. Caroline Spelman paid her nanny for two years out of her staffing allowance. Jacqui Smith designated her main residence her sister's house in order to claim expenses on her constituency home, and it also emerged that she had claimed for pornographic films watched by her husband, Richard Timney.
Legal Battle over Release of Information
Controversy regarding Expenses Claims
John Lewis List
Derek Conway
Derek Conway, the then Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, was found to have employed his son, Frederick, as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office between 2004 and 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000 a year, despite Frederick being a full time undergraduate student at the University of Newcastle. This arrangement was revealed by The Sunday Times on 27 May 2007, an article which prompted a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn referred the matter to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.
The committee launched an investigation into the matter as a whole, and reported to the House on 28 January 2008. On the same day, Conway apologised on the floor of the Commons, stating that he accepting the report's criticisms "in full". The report's main finding was that there was "no record" of Frederick ever doing any substantive work for Conway, and that the salary he was paid was too high. The committee ordered Conway to repay £13,000 of the money Frederick had been paid, and recommended that Conway should be suspended from the Commons for 10 sitting days. These recommendations was approved, in their entirety, by the House of Commons on 31 January 2008.
At the time of Conway's suspenion, the Labour MP John Mann announced that he would be making a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over Conway's employment of his other son, Henry, in a similar capacity to Frederick. Shortly after Conway's suspension and the second allegation being made, the Conservative leader, David Cameron, withdrew the party whip from Conway, effectively leaving him sitting as an Independent MP. Conway subsequently announced that he would not be standing for re-election at the next general election.
In January 2009, exactly a year after the first report, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published a further report, specifically in relation to Conway's employment of his other son, Henry Conway. The committee found that Henry had been employed immediatly prior to Frederick and, similarly, had been studying as a full time undergraduate at the time of his employment. The committee reported that, like the previous case, there was no "hard evidence" of Henry's employment, but also stated that
"it would be unfair to conclude that Henry Conway did not undertake sufficient work to fulfil the terms of his contract of employment"
The committee ordered Conway to repay £3,758 in overpayments to his son, and to also write a letter of apology to the committee's chairman, Sir George Young. Once again, Conway apologised "without qualification" to the Commons.
Caroline Spelman
Caroline Spelman, the then Chairman of the Conservative Party, became embroiled in the "nannygate" saga on 6 June 2008 when the BBC's Newsnight programme suggested she had paid for her nanny out of parliamentary expenses during her early years in Parliament, namely 1997 and 1998. Spelman issued a statement to Newsnight stating that the nanny in question, Tina Haynes, was also Spelman's constituency secretary, a claim agreed by Conservative Central Office. Immediately after the revelations were made public, the nanny told Newsnight that she only took the odd phone message or posted documents when needed. In the following days, however, Haynes stated that her work had, in fact, been on a more formal basis, providing constituency secretarial work when Spelman's children were at school.
In an attempt to resolve the situation and clear her name, Spelman herself asked John Lyons, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to investigate the payments to Haynes. However, the commissioner himself suggested that an investigation dating back seven years would be exceptional, especially on a self-referral.Despite this, the commissioner announced on 17 June that he would launch a formal investigation into the saga.
During the commissioner's investigation, Newsnight revealed that nine years previous, Spelman's parliamentary secretary, Sally Hammond, had raised concerns over the "nannygate" payments with the leadership of the Conservative party. In 1998, Hammond informed Peter Ainsworth, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, who in turn referred the matter to the then Opposition Chief Whip, James Arbuthnot, who investigated and told Spelman to stop paying the Haynes out of parliamentary expenses immediately.
In March 2009, the Committee for Standards and Privileges published their final report into matter, which ruled that Spelman had inadvertently "misapplied part of parliamentary allowances". However, both the Committee and the Commissioner noted that Spelman was, at the time, one of many new member who had taken their seats following the 1997 general election, and was therefore not fully aware of the rules governing the use of purpose of the parliamentary allownaces. The committee recommended that Spelman should repay £9,600.
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper
Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton
Jacqui Smith
Geoff Hoon
Alistair Darling
The Daily Telegraph reports
References
- "Expenses details 'intrude' on MPs". The BBC. 2008-02-07. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Anil Dawar (2008-05-07). "Timeline: MPs' expenses". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- ^ "Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic". The Daily Telegraph. 2009-05-08. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- "'Lax' MP expenses rules condemned". The BBC. 2008-02-26. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Daniel Bentley (2008-03-25). "Expenses disclosure battle headed for High Court". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- "Bid to block MP expenses details". The BBC. 2008-03-25. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Robert Verkaik (2008-05-23). "Freedom Of Information: MPs reach end of road in battle over secret expenses". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- "Q&A: MPs' expenses". The BBC. 2008-05-08. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- ^ House of Commons Standards and Privilegs Report: Conduct of Mr Derek Conway (2008)
- Hansard - 28 January 2008
- Hansard - 31 January 2008
- BBC News - Tory whip withdrawn from Conway
- BBC News - Tory whip withdrawn from Conway
- Daily Telegraph - Derek Conway to stand down at election
- ^ House of Commons Standards and Privileges Report: Conduct of Mr Derek Conway (2009)
- Hansard - 2 February 2009
- BBC News - MP Conway apologises for payments
- BBC News - Tory MP paid nanny from expenses
- BBC News - Tory MP paid nanny from expenses
- BBC News - MP's nanny 'did secretarial work'
- BBC News - Watchdog 'considering' nanny case
- BBC News - Spelman facing expenses inquiry
- BBC News - MPs call for Spelman to be sacked
- Committee of Standards and Privileges Report: Mrs Caroline Spelman