Bercow defends the Legg letters
David Blackburn 10:57am
The BBC reports that John Bercow will defend Sir Thomas Legg’s commission in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow. The Speaker makes two points. First, it is vital that the public are satisfied that MPs have “got the message” on expenses. And second he defended Sir Thomas’ retrospective charges on the grounds that there must be “consequences for past claims if they are shown to be wrong or extravagant.”
Of course, the Speaker could hardly say anything else, lest he provoke a public march on Westminster, but the difference between the Speaker’s stance and that of Harriet Harman indicates that Bercow will not lie down and allow overbearing government or disgruntled MPs to walk all over him. I have reservations about the sense of forcing MPs to pay retrospective charges – there is a clear legal case against doing so – but the political case is unanswerable: MPs have to convince the public that it is payback time. Public anger is too entrenched for forgiveness to be awarded to this parliament – a general election will provide the final act of catharsis - but at least Bercow recognises the political importance of MPs acting to restore faith.
Previous
Hawkeye
October 16th, 2009 11:54am Report this commentThe legality of the matter is no longer an issue. It is about regaining trust and respect.
Victor Southern
October 16th, 2009 12:29pm Report this commentThe moral issue is the one that counts David, not the legal one.
There is no law against adultery in this country but I doubt we would stomach many British politicians who carry on as does Berlusconi. So, we are not concerned with the niceties of the law or "the rules" one tiny bit. It is the moral code by which a politician lives that makes him fit or unfit for office.
You have come out as an apologist for the behaviour of some MPs now more than once. The flow of the current is against you. We want revenge - it is that simple.
JohnPage
October 16th, 2009 12:35pm Report this commentAll Legg has done is put some numbers on the general criteria in the green book. If an MP thinks he needs to spend over £1k a year on his (second home!) garden in pursuit of his parliamentary duties, let him explain why.
Ian Walker
October 16th, 2009 12:38pm Report this commentYou keep on reporting as fact your own opinion that there is no legal basis for Sir Thomas to have applied his criteria retrospectively.
Unfortunately for the MPs, every single claim they submitted required them to sign their name next to the declaration:
"I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament"
The fact that the Fees Office then approved the payments is only marginally relevant; it's perfectly possible to submit a fraudulent VAT return for instance, and receive a repayment.
If the expenses claimed do not meet the criteria of the declaration, then that's fraud, plain and simple.
Allan
October 16th, 2009 1:14pm Report this commentWasn't it Harriet Harman who said that it is the court of public opinion that was important when we had the outcry over Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements. I see when the shoe is on the other foot actually she doesn't give a damn about the court of public opinion.
Also how is cleaning, laundry, sky subscriptions and I am sure many other things necessary to their jobs as MP's in my opinion any money claimed for these sorts of things should be repaid and then the flippers and mortgage fraud should be properly investigated by the police and prosecutions bought, not weak so called apologies to the house.
Vulture
October 16th, 2009 1:31pm Report this commentYou have got a long uphill slog - say Snowden - David, in your battle to defned your Westminster chums from the odium and contempt they have rightly incurred for their immoral, fraudulent and appalling looting of the public purse for their private pleasures.
But you have a veritable Everest to ascend if you want to persuade us that the odious opportunist Bercow is anything other than an oily creep who is himself a leading trougher. Vote Farage and get a new Speaker.
Mitch
October 16th, 2009 1:39pm Report this commentThe original claims went beyond the rules; that is the point.
The fee's office were badgered and bullied into accepting outrageous claims by greedy M.P.'s.
Legg isn't creating new, retrospective rules. He's applying the rules of the time which weren't enforced. I don't blame the fee's office for what happened.
BTW - Bercow having to defend Legg publicly shows why the Speaker should be anonymous outside of the chamber. Pretty soon he'll have to have an opinion on everything and will inevitably damage the Speakership.
Carroll Barry-Walsh
October 16th, 2009 1:57pm Report this commentIan Walker has it absolutely right on the legal issue. Legge is only applying the rules which were in force at the time. Most MPs could not, in good faith, have made the claims they did under ACA and the fact that Legge is now asking them to repay money to which they were not entitled is right, both legally and morally.
Mr Leatherhead
October 16th, 2009 2:00pm Report this commentIan Walker has gone straight to the heart of the matter. MPs mantra is that Legg is imposing retrospective rules. Absolute nonsense! All he has done is put in place a numerical proxy for judging whether indeed the expenses were "wholly, exclusively & necessarily incurred to enable me to stay away from my main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament".
MP's, by their own craven behaviour, have brought an end to the concept of "Honourable Members". They should now be judged by the same standards the rest of us are judged by
Why is Bercow not demanding that the likes of Jacqui Smith face a criminal investigation for cheating the system? If you make a false benifits claim you are off to court.
Back to top