| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:MPs expenses | |
| Posted by: | James Dixon | |
| Date/Time: | 13/05/09 14:20:00 |
| I agree entirely with Martin that a sense of perspective must be maintained in this discussion, although I share with Martine a considerable rising of the blood pressure when the issue is mentioned. It would seem that the many are suffering (considerably) as a result of the misdemeanours of a few, or perhaps more than a few, fellow MPs. A career as an MP is a challenging and demanding one, always carrying with it the risk of losing one’s seat, quite possibly as a result of swings in public opinion nationally over which the individual MP might have no control whatsoever. Then where? It could also be said that in an economic downturn, many other people also face the risk of redundancy as a result of circumstances beyond their individual control, and that is a fair point. It should also be pretty rewarding, from the point of view of personal satisfaction, if you can see that your own efforts have resulted in solving other people's problems. The remuneration package must be reasonable (impossible to define here) otherwise we get represented by somebody totally inadequate. What is totally lacking in the discussion nationally is a more precise legal definition of the framework within which expenses should be claimed by MPs. Yet there is readily available within the tax legislation wording which seems to me pretty difficult to beat, and furthermore has given rise to so much case law, that there are numerous precedents for MPs in difficulties to consult. All employees can only claim for expenditure incurred ' wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the course of their duties '. To take a small example: suppose an MP provides coffee and biscuits to attend the weekly ' surgery '. That seems eminently reasonable to me. However, the claim would only be allowable if the expenditure were solely for use at the surgeries, and not for example for afternoon tea with the rest of the family at the weekend; if it were solely for use in the course of the MP’s individual business, and not for anybody else's business; and necessarily for the business of that MP. These principles would have had to be applied by MPs when submitting their annual income tax returns in the past, so if they were involved in preparing those returns for tax purposes, surely it would not have been too difficult to use exactly the same figures for claims for reimbursement? If they did not use these figures for their tax returns……… then there are some pretty suspect income tax return forms for investigation by HMRC. What has really irritated me these past few days are various statements by politicians from all parties ' that the system permitted it '. Heavens! We elect our MPs to use their own individual skills and judgements in deciding the nation's future, and they should be doing exactly the same thing with their claims expenses. It seems that a kind of lemming culture has developed, and if the individuals concerned have given up on using their own individual skills and judgement, it is high time they applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, by-elections were called, and we could all see what the replacements were made of before a general election were called. As to the repayment of the expenditure, that does not go far enough. These individuals have in effect had interest-free loans from us, their employers, and interest should be payable. As to this proposed new independent review body, that is going to cost money. I suggest its powers should be pretty Draconian. It should be required to list periodically all expenditure claims rejected. Furthermore, if an MP should wish to argue the toss, the review body should have a chart-out rate of, say, £250 per hour, unless the appeal were ultimately successful. Finally, as to flipping, I seem to recall that the very helpful Inland Revenue yellow booklet, CGT8, makes specific reference to it, and it is a fully justifiable practice in normal individual personal circumstances. However, to do it with the public’s money is an entirely different matter. This all needs to be sorted, and quick, otherwise the public will get so disillusioned with mainstream politics that there could be even worse consequences -- the emergence of minority fringe parties. Lord Tebbit, shut up. |