It's Legg time
Peter Hoskin 9:00am
Consider the expenses wound well-and-truly reopened – not that it ever really closed in the first place. Sir Thomas Legg's report into the matter will today identify around 350 MPs who have to return a total of about £1 million in dubious claims. What's more, in his introduction to the document, Legg is set to attack MPs in general for "knowingly" encouraging and exploiting a "culture of deference" in the Parliamentary fees office. The papers are calling it "devastating".
But what will it all come to? The worry is that Legg's report won't draw a line under the whole stinking affair – but will instead kickstart a new round of grumbling, backbiting and reprisal on the part of MPs. Will, for instance, those MPs who lost their appeals against Legg be happy to let the matter rest there? And will other MPs be emboldened by Sir Paul Kennedy's apparent criticisms of the Legg process? If so, there are a few ways they could all cause trouble – from calling for a review into the review, to simply voting against it in Parliament. Even compliance could be done more or less reluctantly: those MPs who do not pay back the money initially will have it deducted from their salaries or severance packages come election time.
We will have to wait and see. But one thing's for certain: Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be hoping against anything that could call their party disicpline into question in the run-up to the election. Especially as today might also bring scandals of another sort.
Previous
AndyinBrum
February 4th, 2010 9:46am Report this commentIs there any reason you're not running with Brown's rather amazing denial of the £50,000 slush fund?
Battle 2807
February 4th, 2010 10:46am Report this commentAh yes, Brown's slush fund. Now that really stinks of corruption. And for him to blatantly deny it - did the Prime minister lie to the House???
Vulture
February 4th, 2010 10:58am Report this comment@ Andy: I think this is what Pete means by 'scandals of another sort'. The slush fund may join a whole tranche of other stories that bubble beneath the surface but never burst into purulent, stinking life because they are...ahem..inconvenient for our masters and the parasite political journalists who live from their scraps.
Eg.
>Neathergate.
>The ongoing trial of Geert Wilders in Holland.
>The hiding of David Kelly's autopsy report for 70 years (!) on the orders of Lord Hutton.
The Blogosphere is the only place you find these discussed - I suspect it will be the same with Bruin's pile of dirty money.
Nick
February 4th, 2010 11:12am Report this commentDon't forget. Even those MPs who have paid back cash are still breaking the rules.
The code of conduct rules are clear. MPs have to avoid the appearance of a personal benefit.
Paying back cash means they have had an interest free loan at the tax payers expense. A personal benefit.
They should be paying interest on the repayments.
If they don't the IR should investigate because its a valuable benefit and subject to tax.
After all they can't use the law that says MPs expenses are exempt from tax. It can't be repaid and still be an expense at the same time
Back to top