Despite the awful credit crunch,
the pigs in the trough went ‘munch, munch, munch’,
No tax, no checks and a bottomless pit
The MP’s wallow, like pigs in S***

The follow the rule they made, of course
so fail to show the slightest remorse,
despite the truly amazing feat
of twice replacing a toilet seat.

One can only conclude from this staggering farce
That the sitter must have an enormous A***.
Repetitive use of moonlight flits
Is exploited by these disgusting S****.

24 light bulbs to replace
Takes one MP, what a foul disgrace.
Tudor beams adorns the house
Of one such common, Commons louse

Benefit-in-kind applies to other
When claiming the cost on the house of mothers
And buying Tampax for a Commons male
Is just part of this most sordid tale

Woe betide the common man
Who aspires to similar perks and can
Look forward to PC plod and pale
At the thought of fraud charges and years in jail.

Beckett and others continue to trot out the line about security (now not necessarily of MPs themselves, but of people supplying, or doing work for MPs), disproportionate cost. There’s still no adequate response to why the quite reasonable imposition of the full disclosure requirements on other public bodies should be avoided by MPs; note that they are still permitted to a) not provide receipted for claims under £25, and get these benefits free of tax, and get to keep the proceeds of any capital appreciation (whether that’s free of tax or not isn’t clear) of the (arguably) necessary 2nd home, or improvements made.

Why, if this was such an ordinary matter of business (the tabling of the motion and the proposed Order last Thursday), was it to be brought into effect so quickly, and on the bais of cross-party agreement that would appear to be absent?

This one is likely not to go away, but we should be able 9and prepared) to battle further – see 2nd clip below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7839281.stm

What was due to happen on Thursday?

MPs were to vote on a plan which would exempt MPs’ expenses details from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) but that has been now been shelved. It would mean any Freedom of Information requests for MPs’ claims made since 2005, could be turned down. MPs’ addresses are already excluded from the FOI Act. There will still be a debate about other changes to expenses, outlined in the revised Green Book, such as moves to allow the National Audit Office to carry out spot checks. MPs will get a free vote on that issue.

Is this an end to the issue?

No. The government has axed the vote on exempting MPs’ expenses from the FOI Act but has not said all receipts will now be published. Gordon Brown said the government sought cross-party support and “would continue to consult on that matter”. MPs will get a free vote on changes to the Green Book – the Commons rule book on expenses. Also, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Christopher Kelly, could still launch his own inquiry into the pay and expenses system. He delayed it last year and his office says a new inquiry was still a possibility. Ms Harman will appear before his committee in February.

By law, I have to keep receipts of all purchases for my small business for five years, whether for large items, or sellotape. However, what I think is the key point, in my business, I am not spending the taxpayers’ money, only my own, and I think all citizens, no matter who they are, should be subject to the same rules of accountability. Let’s hope that wisdom reigns in the House with this motion/bill.

Regards.

If the Order had really been conditional on cross party support, then why was there a 3 line whip imposed by the Labour party to try to force it through ?

Well done to everyone who lobbied their MPs through What
WriteToThem.com or by other means.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7842402.stm

January 21, 2009
Lords to try and throw out the FOI changes

Liberal Democrat peer Tom McNally has apparently put down a motion which – if passed tomorrow – would throw out attempts by the Commons to keep their expenses secret.

Despite a convention that the Lords do not usually interfere in Commons affairs, the government do face a reasonable chance of defeat, for two reasons.

Firstly the little known but influential “Merits of Statutory Instruments” committee, chaired by a Labour peer Lord Filkin, has issued a damning report about the rule changes. It says:

The Government has failed to provide an explanation of why the additional measures in the Order are required over and above a previous SI rushed through in July 2008 that was intended to deal with concerns over MPs’ personal security. The Order does not clearly state what the change is intended to achieve and the Committee recommends Peers seek an explanation from Government over why the Order is necessary and what its objective is when it is debated tomorrow.

Secondly, the Tories are minded to back the Lib Dem motion – although no formal word on their position yet.

Already Lords sources are comparing this vote to the occasion peers threw out plans passed by the Commons for supercasinos – the beginning of the end of that particular policy. Could it happen again?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2009/01/lords-to-try-an.html