A controversial Private Member’s Bill to remove Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was approved by the Commons last year. MPs claimed they needed to be excluded from the Act to safeguard their correspondence with constituents.

 

The exercise smacked of self-interest – some MPs wanted to ensure that campaigners could not see details of expenses. The proposal fell when no peer would take the measure through the Lords.

 

Yesterday the Government proposed to amend the Act to exclude information about MPs’ individual expenses claims.

 

The only information will be annual totals. We will be able to find out how much an MP spent on hotels, but not the breakdown.

 

Publication of detailed expenses has led to criticism of MPs - some fair, some excessive. But all public figures are now subject to this disclosure regime. Why should MPs, who approved this legislation, be treated differently?

 

Maurice Frankel is director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information

 

Source: Sunday Times

 

What have these greedy MP's got to hide, that exempts them from the Freedom of Information Act?

its hard to diferenciate between hiding dodgy goings on and legitimate security for private matters like correspondance with constituence.

Take hotels for example. Would we the public need to know exactly which restaurants and hotels MPs use?

 

What would I need that information for - getting their autographs?, turning up and batting my eyelashes hoping for a good catch, a nice loaded sugar daddy ?

 

If however I was a terrorist, it might be handy to find out which politicians were creatures of habit and where they might be found regularly. It would save me a lot of legwork finding out by other means.

Edited January 19, 200916 yr by Baytree

Oh come on. Then they don't disclose the location of the hotel, just what they spent there and what on. MPs expenses are a sore point with many because they are largely unjustified - those that they we do know about.

 

They cannot have one rule for us and one for them. If they're uncomfortable making the information available then the rest of their unnecessary 'Big Brother' legislation has to be scrapped along with it.

This has nothing to do with what hotels they might stay at,and nothing to do with security, its about slap up lunches, extra furnishings for second homes, laptops for family members, etc etc... they can spend thousands and don't have to put in any receipts. In any Company you have to provide receipts to claim expenses. In the Scottish parliament all expenses are approved, receipted and available under the F.O.A., so what have these greedy bast*rds wanting to keep from us.

It would help if people appreciated that most MPs do need second homes to do their job. Yes, we're entitled to know how much MPs claim and what for but we should accept that it is impossible to be an effective MP for, say, a constituency in the Scottish highlands without claiming substantial travel expenses - both for travelling within the constituency and between the constituency and Westminster.

That would be justified and nobody could say it wouldn't be. But it's the secrecy that leads to people whispering.

 

I don't mind the essentials, but dining out on non-Parliamentary business or purchasing too many luxury items needs to be stamped out. As Brian says, in any other company you'd have to justify the expenditure...in this case the MPs need to justify it to their constituents and the country at large.

To listen to some people, you'd think they resented MPs claiming any expenses at all. Some people also seem to think that MPs expenses are a recent phenomenon. In fact, it's only in the last decade or so that we've been able to find out anything at all about MPs expenses.

 

Unfortunately, that leads to outrage from the tabloid press when it is revealed (shock, horror) that some MPs claim more than others. Some MPs will get more correpsondence from constituents than others. Therefore, they will probably claim higher secretarial expenses. There sould be many reasons for an MP claiming very little. It could be that they are very wealthy and choose not to claim as much as they could. Or they could just be lazy and so incur very little in the way of expenses.

 

Now, if we could see journalists' expenses, that could be very interesting.

Oh come on. Then they don't disclose the location of the hotel, just what they spent there and what on. MPs expenses are a sore point with many because they are largely unjustified - those that they we do know about.

 

They cannot have one rule for us and one for them. If they're uncomfortable making the information available then the rest of their unnecessary 'Big Brother' legislation has to be scrapped along with it.

 

Quite right Richie.... MPs should be following the same rules as anyone else when it comes to expenses, JUSTIFY it.... You get London MPs claiming expenses for SECOND HOMES ffs..... What kind of bullsh!t is that......? <_< A London MP is certainly not buying a second home out of necessity like an MP from, say, Newcastle or Belfast would be, it's like, well, sorry mate, but if you live in Barnet, Enfield or Richmond, TAKE THE FUKKIN' TUBE OR OVERGROUND TO WORK LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES..... :rolleyes:

 

Spot on in the second paragraph as well.... The Govt is expecting us to give up our privacy and freedoms, and yet they want to keep their freedom to fleece us private..... Bollocks.... They're bloody PUBLIC SERVANTS, so it's about time they were reminded of that fact..... <_<

Unfortunately, that leads to outrage from the tabloid press when it is revealed (shock, horror) that some MPs claim more than others.

 

So, just because the Tabloids express "shock" or "outrage" about this, this automatically negates it from being pretty shocking and outrageous.... Sorry, but you're wrong... And it's very far from being the Tabloids who have been advocating this... I've been reading the likes of Private Eye and New Statesmen, as well as other left-wing/anarchist publications for ages, and it has certainly been a consistent position of theirs that there should be full disclosure of MPs' expenses... In fact in the 20 years I've been reading Private Eye, they've pretty much ALWAYS been on hand to report on the excesses of politicians, govt, local authorities... Just reading their "Rotten Boroughs" and "HP Sauce" sections at any time in the past 20 years reveals this fact... Tabloid journos get it as well from Hislop's crew.... The "Street of Shame" section really sticks it to them..... I also dont believe your argument regarding journalist's expenses is a valid one, last time I looked, journos weren't in receipt of TAXPAYERS' money..... :rolleyes:

 

As for baytree's argument, sorry this simply does not wash with me... Just saying "security reasons" is becoming a hell of a lot like 'crying wolf'... And who says we need, or particularly want, to have the actual locations....? No, it's the figures that are most important.... I dont care if some MP is staying in The Savoy or Ma and Pa O' Reilly's Guesthouse, I just want to know how much of MY money they claiming for and a breakdown of specifics....

 

For example...

 

Hotel Expenses - "amount x" (with cost breakdown)

Travel Expenses - "amount y" (with cost breakdown)

Admin Costs - "amount z" (with cost breakdown)

Second Home allowance "amount xx" (with cost breakdown)

 

And, er, that's it..... So, exactly where is the so-called "security risk" in releasing this information......? MPs dont like filling in receipts....? Too bad, every bugger else has to.... :rolleyes:

I'm not saying the expenses shouldn't be published. Of course they should be published. I'm just lamenting the fact that the tabloids will report them in their usual puerile way. Maybe after a few years the coverage will get better but in the short term many MPs will be wishing they could have kept it all secret. After all, don't forget that for many years we weren't allowed to know anything at all about the expenses they claim.

I'm not saying the expenses shouldn't be published. Of course they should be published. I'm just lamenting the fact that the tabloids will report them in their usual puerile way. Maybe after a few years the coverage will get better but in the short term many MPs will be wishing they could have kept it all secret. After all, don't forget that for many years we weren't allowed to know anything at all about the expenses they claim.

 

A few slightly over-sensationalised examples of reporting should not mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater mate..... At the end of the day, I feel absolutely no sympathy for how "uncomfortable" a few bloody politicians might be made to feel, I really dont, they are public servants, we OWN them, and it's about time we the people started to remind them of the fact... If I am to pay my taxes and NI to keep that lot, I want them working for me, simple as, and not just using and abusing their positions to pad out their salaries or what have you.... It's pretty clear to me that the likes of Private Eye and New Statesmen were correct to push their campaign for so long, because I think the abuse that we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg.....

 

And now, it seems, we have Nu Labor peers up to no good, four of them allegedly taking bungs from vested interests in order to buy changes to Parliamentary bills......WTF????? <_<

 

Lib Dems to lodge peers complaint

Source - BBC News website - 26 Jan 2009

 

The Liberal Democrats are making a complaint to the police over claims that four Labour peers were ready to take cash to change legislation.

 

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne will write to the Metropolitan Police over the claims, which arose following a Sunday Times investigation.

 

All four peers, who spoke to undercover reporters, have denied any wrongdoing.

 

The leader of the House of Lords, Lady Royall, has spoken to them and is to meet with the four later.

 

The Sunday Times claims the peers offered to help make amendments to legislation in return for up to £120,000.

 

The former energy minister Lord Truscott did admit to having had "discussions" with the reporter, but said that "to suggest I would offer to put down amendments for money is a lie".

 

Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, acknowledged discussing a fee of £30,000 with the undercover reporters but said he had not done anything "outside the rules".

 

The third peer, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said two people approached him and suggested paying him £5,000 to £10,000 a month as an adviser, but that he never said he would accept, no contract was signed and no money changed hands.

 

Former Labour whip Lord Snape issued a statement saying he had made it clear he was unable to "initiate or amend any legislation on behalf of an individual or a company".

 

Rules examination

 

Lady Royall said she would be "pursuing the matter with utmost vigour".

 

In addition to her own meeting with the men, she has asked the Lords Committee for Privileges to investigate.

 

Its members include former lord chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and Baroness Manningham-Buller, former director of MI5.

 

Our politics must be clean and seen to be clean in both the Commons and the Lords

 

 

But there have also been calls for a wider look at the rules, which currently allow peers to be paid as consultants, as long as they do not take money for exercising parliamentary influence, our correspondent added.

 

Two separate parliamentary inquiries are also expected to look at the issues surrounding the four peers.

 

If the peers are found guilty of having broken the rules, they could be required to apologise on the floor of the Lords, but cannot be expelled from parliament or stripped of their titles.

 

'Shocking' allegations

 

Mr Huhne said procedures in the Lords should be tightened to match those in the Commons, including the power to suspend or expel misbehaving members.

 

Conservative leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, said the allegations were "shocking".

 

Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said he would await the outcome of the House of Lords investigation to see whether it was "an area" the watchdog needed to look at further.

 

The Sunday Times said its reporters had posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client, who was setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanted an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill.

 

 

A few slightly over-sensationalised examples of reporting should not mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater mate..... At the end of the day, I feel absolutely no sympathy for how "uncomfortable" a few bloody politicians might be made to feel, I really dont, they are public servants, we OWN them, and it's about time we the people started to remind them of the fact... If I am to pay my taxes and NI to keep that lot, I want them working for me, simple as, and not just using and abusing their positions to pad out their salaries or what have you.... It's pretty clear to me that the likes of Private Eye and New Statesmen were correct to push their campaign for so long, because I think the abuse that we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg.....

Please stop accusing me of saying things I haven't said. I didn't say the predictably awful press coverage was a reason for keeping expenses secret. I merely said that some MPs would be wishing the information had been kept secret. The limited informationpublished in recent years has already had some effect. The first year that travel expenses an MP for a constituency within the M25 had one of the highest claims. The following year she claimed a good deal less. If she was embarrassed at having her travel expenses published, that's tough.

Any MP that objects to this clearly has something to hide and is fiddling their expenses, it is taxpayers money so we have the right to know how it is being spent

Any MP that objects to this clearly has something to hide and is fiddling their expenses, it is taxpayers money so we have the right to know how it is being spent

 

Spot on mate... Good to have you back by the way....

 

Thanks ^_^ good to be back ^_^