Member News
By Ned Simons - 8th November 2010
I don’t want any MP to raise their head above the parapet only to have it chopped off
Adam Afryie MP
Nadine Dorries has warned that another expenses scandal is coming at MPs "like a train" due to the inadequacies of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).
The Conservative MP made the comments when she appeared in front of the Commons backbench business committee this afternoon to help lobby for a Commons debate on the workings of Ipsa.
And appearing alongside Dorries, Tory MP Adam Afryie said he did not mind being "beaten senseless" by the media for daring to criticise the new expenses regime even if others were justifiably scared of being "torn apart".
The committee chaired by Labour MP Natascha Engel has been granted the power to allocate time for debates in the Commons chamber and Westminster Hall. Every Monday the committee hear bids from MPs who want to secure parliamentary time for a topic dear to their hearts.
Dorries said that every MP she spoke to was "frustrated and angry and despairing" at the current system and saw no sign that it was getting better.
"Ipsa have been refusing a large number of claims which MPs have been putting forward, not because they are inappropriate claims, but because they have missed out a field on the form or incorrectly completed a form," she said.
She added: "We all know that another expenses scandal is coming at us like a train and it will be along the lines of 'MPs are still claiming inappropriate expenses because there have been this number of refusals'".
A parliamentary answer given by Ipsa at the end of October revealed that 162 out of 5,256 claim forms submitted in September were still awaiting payment.
According to the expenses body in all cases that was because either the form has been completed incorrectly, or "insufficient supporting evidence has been submitted or some other query has been raised with a Member".
The Mid Bedfordshire MP also criticised the Ipsa regime for being "un-family friendly" as MPs were no longer allowed to claim for the cost of bringing their children to London on the train.
"That has put a large number of female MPs who also have primary care responsibility in a difficult position," she warned.
And she said the only way to retain Parliament as a place of "some integrity" where people other than the "wealthy or the childless" could be MPs would be to "take the pendulum back a little bit, because it has swung to far with Ipsa".
Leading the call for a debate to be held quickly, Afryie said changes needed to be brought in as soon as possible to avoid.a "drip feed" of refused receipts inevitably being misread by the media.
"This debate absolutely has to take place before Christmas," he said.
It was Afryie's second attempt to be granted some parliamentary time, having made an initial bid at the committee's first session last week.
He told the committee that there was "no question" that a debate on the topic would garner a lot of interest as it was nearly all MPs talked about in the Commons tea rooms. One of the criteria the committee use to judge whether to grant a debate or not is whether they feel enough MPs will want to discuss the topic.
"There are a lot of people who want to say something, I am sure we could not only fill 3 hours but probably 12 hours," he said.
The Tory MP proposed that MPs be given a chance to debate and vote on a motion on the floor of the House that read:
"This House deplores the excessive cost to taxpayers arising from the expenses system introduced by the Ipsa, further regrets that its bureaucratic nature restricts the time available to MP and their staff to serve their constituents in the conduct of their parliamentary duties for which they were elected.
"The House recognisees the potential need for a revision of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2010 to enforce the original mandate of the Ipsa to be cost effective and efficient
"We call on her majesty's government and political party leaders to allow the House an opportunity put forward and debate measures and come to a decision on these matters provided there is no additional call on the public purse."
He also suggested that in order to keep party politics out of it backbench MPs debate the issue without the presence of ministers or shadow spokespeople.
"It would certainly give the party leaders and political parties in general an opportunity to stand back from this," he suggested.
Committee member Peter Bone confirmed that there had been a lot of interest in the proposed debate, acknowledging a number of MPs had lobbied for it behind the scenes "quite forcefully".
But he said that hardly any of them were willing to appear alongside Afryie in public at the committee because they had "trouble in the past" with the media over their expense claims.
Afryie admitted that many MPs would be too fearful of being "torn apart" by the media if they spoke in the debate, but he said many new MPs who had not been tainted by the expenses scandal would be willing to speak.
"A lot of new MPs are slightly more willing to speak because they have not felt the full force of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph," he explained.
He added: "I don’t want any MP to raise their head above the parapet only to have it chopped off."
And he said he was willing to act as a "lone wolf" on the matter until the inadequacies of the expenses system were "so painful" MPs began to leave Parliament.
In a final bid to be granted time for his debate, Afryie said he saw no reason why backbenchers should not be permitted to discuss an expenses system which was "clearly impeding the ability of them to do their work and costing the taxpayer a fortune"
Article Comments
Actually if you look at Nadine's expenses she has not had one claim refused from IPSA and she was cleared by the commissioner. Seems to me like she has a pretty good mandate to stick her head above the parapet, don't you think lefties what you all above are isn't it?!!
James
11th Nov 2010 at 9:36 am
I am amazed by Nadine Dorries' audacity to complain about the Parliamentary expenses system having just been hauled in front of the Parliamentary Commisioner for standards and forced to admit that she is claiming for a second home in her constituency because she isn't actually resident there but has her principal residence is in the Cotswolds - despite the fact that her constituency is less than an hours' commute by train from Parliament.
Perhaps if she actually lived in her constiuency she wouldnt need to claim second home benefit or train fares for her children ?
Ultimately do we really want MPs' expenses in the hands of someone who was also forced to admit that her website was "fiction" designed to give her constituents a misleading view of how much time she spends in the Constituency?
If the ISPA system is so onerous perhaps MPs would like to come and work in the private sector with the rest of us where thier approach to expenses would no doubt be met with gross misconduct charges and disciplinary hearings .
Martin
10th Nov 2010 at 3:39 pm
Presumably, Dorries thinks that benefits claims, immigration forms and other such documents should be treated the same way, because obviously she doesn't think MPs should be treated differently than other people. Right? RIGHT?
Jared
10th Nov 2010 at 12:43 pm
They're fearful of being torn apart in the media because they know, inherently, they're in the wrong. If they put expenses in the hands of MPs, the amount of claims will go through the roof when they realise they have what is essentially a limitless line of credit. Instead of relaxing the rules, tighten them up even further to make them think twice about conning the British public in future.
Swarvester
10th Nov 2010 at 10:19 am
My employer doesn't allow me to claim 'for the cost of bringing my children to London on the train.' and if they did, I'm pretty sure HMRC would have something to say about that. Until today, it hadn't even occurred to me to feel hard done by about that.
ian
10th Nov 2010 at 9:51 am
'Ipsa have been refusing a large number of claims which MPs have been putting forward, not because they are inappropriate claims, but because they have missed out a field on the form or incorrectly completed a form'
Perhaps Dorries would have less difficulty with filling in the form correctly had she not allowed her copy of the IPSA guide go through her office window (which she then joked about):
http://just-ramble-on.co.uk/2010/07/23/mrs-dorries-the-open-door-the-gust-of-wind-and-the-improbable-loss-of-her-expenses-guidance/
Clearly a highly arrogant person who thinks that she's above any kind of scrutiny or oversight.
Bartholomew
10th Nov 2010 at 9:25 am
'Ipsa have been refusing a large number of claims which MPs have been putting forward, not because they are inappropriate claims, but because they have missed out a field on the form or incorrectly completed a form'
This is how the DWP process benfit claims under the system which you lot approved. Live with it. And buy your sprogs train tickets out of your salary like everyone else has to - that's what it's for.
George
10th Nov 2010 at 9:22 am
MPs trying to regain 'ownership' of the expenses and allowances trough!
As a full taxpaying citizen voter, I DO NOT want MPs to have 'ownership' of the expenses and allowances system..... in the same way that I do not want the local burgling community to have ownership of my house and car keys!
Have this latest set of MPs not learned that the antics of those in the 'Fraudsters' Parliament' mean that no sensible full taxpaying citizen voter would allow MPs near an unguarded pile of loose change...... never mind the millions of punds of taxpayers' money sloshing around in the MPs' expenses and allowances honeypot!
John L Bell
9th Nov 2010 at 10:24 pm
Re:-Dorries said that every MP she spoke to was 'frustrated and angry and despairing' at the current system and saw no sign that it was getting better.
I can assure you that the 'frustration' felt by MPs unable to get their noses back in the trough is FAR exceeded by the frustration by full taxpaying citizen voters, like myself, who have been stunned that the full weight of Sections 2-4 of The Fraud Act which came into force in January 2007 has not been used against the large number of MPs in the last 'Fraudsters Parliament' who misappropriated many millions of taxpayers's monies!
Am I the only one who wonders if the Theft Act has been used against the 'minnows&' in the MPs expenses and allowances scandal because the full deployment of The Fraud Act would have ensnare large numbers of MPs, of ALL political parties, and at ALL levels of seniority, upto ministerial and shadow ministerial level?
John L Bell
8th Nov 2010 at 10:59 pm
Welcome to the real world. If you fill out a form incorrectly it is rejected, apparently MPs think they have are a special case.
tim
8th Nov 2010 at 6:26 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.