| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:MPs expenses | |
| Posted by: | James Dixon | |
| Date/Time: | 15/05/09 11:40:00 |
| This thread appears to be going off at a tangent.... now, back to the mainline. This morning's horror story sees a plea that the claim was made 'according to the rules'. What I don't have a grasp of is the practical aspect of this. Are 'the rules': [a] a general set of principles, rather like the Income Tax legislation, of which the M.P., and his/her secretary/PA supposed to have a firm grasp? or [b] a detailed handbook which enables the M.P., and his/her secretary/PA to follow closely? My hunch is that the answer is the former; and, let's face it, a busy M.P., together with whoever assists in the process, and who may be of variable standing if not duration, may have some difficulty with this. The way forward may well involve the 'tick-box' approach of the latter, if it is not already in place. To whom is the Fees Office responsible? Is it the Speaker? If it is, and the Fees Office would appear to have been delivering a below-par service in certain instances, is that the reason why Mr Martin has been so on the defensive in recent months? I don't know. To what extent can an individual M.P. 'apply pressure' on the Fees Office? Hopefully the two are very much at an arm's length, and deal exclusively in writing, so that an audit trail is available. Were M.P.'s ever warned that one of the consequences of the Freedom of Information Act enabled the general public to be appraised of what they were claiming? I think these are all valid questions, to which the answers may all be available, but I might not have read wide enough. We have to move forward. There will be a new Parliament within the year, and the new Members will want to have complete certainty as to what they can or can not do. |