Expenses Investigation begins

Our MPs (and non-elected politicans) have been living the life of Riley for years, spending tax-payers' money on everything from interior decor to duck houses and from Hobnobs to massage chairs (along with just about everything else John Lewis sell), but finally the end is beginning: Sir Christopher Kelly's inquiry, ordered by PM Gordon Brown but only after details were leaked to the press and the public quite rightfully got angry about being so comprehensively ripped off, began yesterday.

We hope (in an entirely non-pervy way, of course) to see plenty more MPs brought before the headmaster to explain their behaviour and receive punishment. Cane 'em good, Sir Chris!

One of the first MPs to be hauled up in front of Sir Chris was Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, who made claims for a £230 digital camera, to cover costs of her public website which was deemed as being "too political" and resulted in her being served a warning from Commons officials that a part was "not acceptable for inclusion on your publicly funded site" and also to pay her PR agent according to the Daily Telegraph.

Sir Christopher has stated that his Committee on Standards in Public Life had been concerned about expenses claims for "some time" and says that he had proposed an investigation in the past, prior to the time that Mr. Brown approached him with the same proposal after the Telegraph began to print details, suggesting that he was well aware that should the story leak, it'd become a major scandal and that had it not have leaked, Brown and other MPs would have been perfectly content to continue raiding the public purse. He estimates that the investigation will be complete by October this year despite calls for it to be done earlier - take as long as you need, Sir Chris. We just want you to do a thorough job and leave no stone unturned.

He also says that he has been "both surprised and I think it is fair to say, shocked" as the full extent of MPs' greed has come to light. Although the Government is refusing to publish a full version of the report - saying that it will heavily edit those parts to be made public, in the process removing more information than that protected by law - we can hope that in light of Sir Christopher's apparent disgust he'll do a good job.

However, since he has pointed out that the Committee is only able "to make recommendations over what course of action should be taken" and that "at end of the day it is up to the Government whether or not they take his advice on board" we will not be able to decide with certainty that we will have been given the full story told with absolute truth or if politicians really are going to clean up their act.

With their reputations lower than ever - incredibly, it appears that it is in fact possible to have an even poorer opinion of an MP than we did at any time in the past - it seems highly unlikely that anyone will accept the findings of the report with any less than at least a great big double handful of salt.

Commons watchdog: "concerned for some time" over expenses

Sir Christopher Kelly, head of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which is carrying out the investigation into those pesky MPs' expenses claims, has told the BBC that he had been "concerned for some time" about possible abuses prior to the Daily Telegraph's efforts to massively increase its sales...er, we mean expose details. Sir Christopher has also claimed that he was "shocked" by some of the worst examples - we know how you feel, Sir Chris. Just imagine how a single parent trying to raise three children on minimum wage feels when finding out that their taxes have gone towards financing the luxurious lifestyles of people who receive a minimum annual salary of over £64,000.


Harriet Harman MP has made it publically known that a report into the expenses will be published on the 1st of July this year - thus far, it looks likely that this will be in heavily edited form as a cross party Estimate Committee says that there will be no plans to change what is published from a redacted version, from which information that is not protected by data laws will be removed along with personal and bank details, despite questions on the legality of this move from Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour MP for Coventry North West. This will, of course, mean that none of us can be certain we're really finding out what our representatives have been spending our money on.

Sir Christopher suggests that the Committee had been aware that the expenses could flare up into a major political scandal for a long time, saying that they have had their "eye in it." Though he says he is fully aware of the need to act quickly so that what he calls "this dreadful episode" can be brought to a conclusion - and, we hope, changes to prevent further abuse can be made - he also predicts that his report will not be complete until at least Parliament's return after the summer recess in October.

House of Commons authorities have been opposed to making public details on MPs' claims related to the second homes allowance for a long time, in much the same way as a bank robber prefers not to confess details of heists unless forced by capture to do so. However, campaigners took them to the High Court where they lost the case and were forced to compile a list of receipts in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Telegraph obtained its list - from which it has so far published details on around 150 members - prior to widespread publication of those receipts.

Sir Christopher claims that "we proposed doing the study to Gordon Brown before he proposed it back to us," which adds four-star-with-performance-enhancing-chemical-compounds fuel to the growing suspicion (or, in our opinion, confirms beyond doubt the knowledge) that had details not been forced out of the Commons, they'd have all been more than happy to continue ripping the tax-payers off for every penny they possibly could - just like the self-serving, money-grabbing, loathesome little toads the vast majority of them have proved themselves to be (David Howarth, LibDem for Cambridge - you claimed NO expenses and as a result can have one of these yummy biscuits we found in Chris Huhne's office. Don't worry - you're not receiving stolen goods - we paid for them in the first place).

He points out that his Committee is able to make recommendations over what course of action shoud be taken, but at end of the day it is up to the Government whether or not they take his advice on board. However, he also states that if complete transparency is to be achieved, a complete system of audit is required and that the Committee could - and would - take further steps if they decided it was necessary to do so.

Gordon, Gordon, Gordon! You really must learn to listen to what people are telling you - if only you'd listened to what Sir Christopher said to you in the past, you could have avoided all this. In fact, you probably could have put a bit of positive spin on it and made it look as though you - in our interests - were cleaning up Parliament and saving the tax-payer a great deal of money. But then, I suppose it must to be hard to hear what people are saying when you've got your snout in the trough.