Four MPs face criminal charges

Disappointingly, only four MPs face charges over their dodgy expenses claims - however, four is better than none, which is how many Acid Rabbi was predicting would find themselves subject to possible prosecution. It remains to be seen whether or not, if you happen to earn a basic salary of very nearly £65,000 a year and have a seat in Parliament, punishment will take the same form - each of the errant Members could face up to seven years in the nick if found guilty. Note the could - though not given to placing bets, we're willing to put at least a quid on none of them getting anything like that.

It's been a while since we last had a look at Elliot Morley, the MP for Scunthorpe, who finds himself subject to two counts of dishonestly claiming expenses (which is legalese for "being shamelessly on the fiddle"). The first alleges that, between 2004 and 2006, he falsely claimed an extra £14,428 on his mortgage allowance and the second that between 2006 and 2007 he had a further £16,000 on the same property . What do you think would happen to you if you were found to have claimed nearly thirty and a half grand you were not entitled to in Housing Benefit? Prison, in all likelihood, or at the very least you'd be ordered to repay the lot and complete a hundred hours or so of community service - which would be precisely what you deserved. Not the slap on the wrist that Morley's probably going to get. To be fair, he'd be asked to resign too - but he's been planning to step down at the next election anyway.

Elliot Morley faces prosecution over the £30,428 he allegedly dishonestly claimed to cover his mortgage. If found guilty, he probably won't go to prison for seven years like most other people would.

Then there's David Chaytor, another member for whom we reserve an especial loathing. The Bury North MP is alleged to have dishonestly claimed £1,950 for IT expenses and further amounts of £12,925 and £5,425 to cover the costs of renting two properties. "OK, fair enough," you may think, "claiming for rental costs sounds like legitimate use of the accommodation allowance." One small problem there - it appears that the two properties were owned by Chaytor and his mother. Mr. Chaytor also faces a possible seven years, but once again we suspect nothing of the sort will actually happen.

Jim Devine's case is unusual in that he faces prosecution for none of the allegations made against him when the expenses scandal first broke, when it was alleged that he had claimed £2,157 to pay for electrical work, using an invoice with a fake VAT number and address. Instead, he is charged with false accounting - namely that he used fake invoices to claim £3,240 in cleaning expenses between 2008 and 2009, £5,505 for stationery in 2009 and £2,326 for shelving. In the last case, the invoice was later shown to have been supplied by one Tony Moran - the landlord of a pub in Mr. Chaytor's Livingstone constituency.

Last but not least in the dock is Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who has been suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party and who plans to step down as shadow Transport Minister, faces an impressive six counts of false accounting including "numerous" occasions when he falsely claimed for overnight stays in London - documentary evidence shows that he was, in fact, chauffeured to his home in Essex. Lord Hanningfield received a Rural Vision award in 2009 from the Countryside Alliance (an organisation for which we have very little affection, due to their apparent inability to recognise the many country-dwellers who support the ban on hunting with dogs) in recognition for his opposition to the highly unpopular proposed second runway at Stansted Airport and the closure of rural post offices; which, the Alliance claimed, demonstrates that he is a politician with the countryside's future at heart. If found guilty, it will be plain that his own wealth is actually the issue closest to his heart, as has been confirmed of most politicians in the wake of the scandal.

So what is likely to happen to this motley crew of reprobates? Seven years in prison is so unlikely as to be laughable (though in no way as laughable as seeing the whole lot of 'em locked up would be). I doubt we'll be seeing them cleaning up the dog crap and discarded syringes in their local parks, either, as we were hoping would be George Osborne's punishment were he found guilty of his own dubious expenses claims. The original and widespread furore that surrounded the whole debacle when it was first outed by the Daily Telegraph died during the Parliamentary summer recess, when a large percentage of the Great British Public decided to concern themselves with the X-Factor/Pop Idol instead and the baying for MP's blood has diminished to a whisper. Will they even be forced to pay back the money - which, despite the high sums, is unlikely to be the punishment it would be for anyone on the dole (or indeed, earning an average British salary) caught fiddling their benefits since all four are independently wealthy men who will not be forced into a life of drudgery as they try desperately to meet the repayments every month. Slaps on the wrists all round, before they shuffle quietly off to high-paying jobs on the lecture circuit/in finance?

Could it be there really is one law for the poor and another law for the rich and powerful? We shall soon know once and for all.

Keens win back home

Ann and Alan Keen, the MP couple who have been in the news regularly of late since Hounslow Council contacted them wanting to know why they hadn't lived in the property designated as their official main home for at least seven months and threatening to take possession of it if they didn't come up with some convincing reasons pretty sharpish, have won the legal fight to evict the squatters who moved into the house and hung a massive sign reading "reclaiming your taxes" on the front.


According to Commons rules on claiming expenses, an MP's main home should be the one at which they spend most nights. They are then required to foot the bill for that property, but are free to make claims to cover the costs of a second home nearer Parliament (nine miles away, in the Keens' case) - which is what the Keens have been doing with their £750,000 flat in Westminster, even though it was claimed in court that they had not lived in the Brentford main home since August 2008. Though the couple say that they have lived in the Westminster flat only while renovations are in progress at the main home - reports suggest that no work has taken place there in eight months - Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon seems to feel the case is questionable since he has agreed to carry out further investigation.

Guido Fawkes, the king of political bloggers, raises an interesting conundrum. Pointing out that it may be merely a question of semantics, he noticed that during one court exchange only Mr. Keen was named as the Brentford property's owner. This does rather force one to wonder, if that's the case, how it was that Mrs. Keen was then able to claim expenses for the second home since if Mr. Keen is the sole legal owner of the Brentford house the Westminster flat is technically her only home and as such can only be designated her main residence. It certainly seems that she may have at the very least bent the rules somewhat there...unless, of course, there's a third property tucked away somewhere, of which she is the legal owner. You'd have thought that were that the case, we'd know about it by now but then again, when it comes to people of this calibre you never can tell. We'll be keeping a very keen eye out for anything interesting that the Commissioner's investigation may discover.

Mr. and Mrs. Expenses face investigation

Ann and Alan Keen found themselves in the news a couple of weeks back when it emerged that Hounslow Council were threatening to take ownership of their Brentford home if the couple - who are both MPs - failed to explain why the property had been left empty for more than seven months (possibly a year, according to some sources). They have since said that it is being renovated - but reports subsequently appeared saying that no work has been carried out on the site for eight months. According to The Guardian, neighbours claim they rarely saw the couple even prior to the date they are claiming work began on the house.

The Keens' "main home," empty for more than seven months, has been taken over by squatters who enjoy the support of many local residents.
Image from The Red Rag.

The house was subsequently taken over by squatters -with the support of many local residents - who hung a large sign reading "reclaiming your taxes" on the front of the building. A number of performing artists, including the well-known and very funny left-wing comedian Mark Thomas, have staged events at the property.

The couple have claimed more than £130,000 over the last four years to cover the costs of their official second home, situated in Westminster. As we are all well aware, the second home allowance is supposed to pay for a home closer to Parliament than an MP's main home (designated as the one at which they spend most nights) so that the MP can attend Commons debates without having to travel large distances daily. Brentford is nine miles away from Westminster - so if the likes of David Howarth and Grant Shapps can travel from their own constituencies of Cambridge and Welwyn Hatfield (50 and 20 miles respectively), what prevents the Keens from travelling such a short distance? I know people who have walked that far to get to work...but I suppose they weren't self-serving, money-grabbing scam artists so they don't count. Mr. Keen claimed £1611 for running a car in 2006-2007, so he wouldn't have had to walk anyway.

So not only is it highly morally questionable whether or not the Keens should have claimed for a second home that - by anyone else's judgement - they had no reasonable need for due to the fact that they were quite literally just down the road from their place of work, they also should not have claimed expenses for that property according to Commons rules because they have evidently been spending most nights there.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon appears to agree that it looks rather as though the Keens may have deliberately abused the system. As their constituencies (Brentford and Isleworth is Ann's, Alan represents Feltham and Heston) both fall outside the area designated inner London they are entitled to the second home allowance, no matter how unethical and ridiculous their claiming of it seems. But if the renovation story is true, they should at the very least have informed the Commons Fees Office and kept them up to date with what's going on. Meanwhile, the very fact that Mr. Lyon has agreed to investigate the case is an indication that feels there is sufficient reason to doubt the truth of those claims.

On the 25th of May this year, The Times printed a story revealing that Mrs. Keen had taken out a life insurance policy on her husband for £430,000, and then claimed the £867 monthly payments as part of her expenses which are supposed to cover costs arising directly as a result of a politician's work. Their Westminster flat cost £750,000, so not having to foot the bill for the Brentford house has no doubt been very useful in helping them meet the mortgage repayments. Don't forget that both of them receive the MPs' salary of £64,766 - plus Ann gets another £30,000 or so on top of that because she's also the Under-Secretary of State for Health Services. That title probably refers to the health of the couple's joint bank account - £159,532 is a fairly healthy annual income by anyone's standards. It's certainly enough to expect them to pay their own bills.

Here at Acid Rabbi, we've been trying our hardest to avoid using that ugly term troughers, of which the newspapers (and other bloggers) are so keen, but we really cannot think of a better term for Ann and Alan - or not one that wouldn't get us in trouble for slander, at any rate. While we cannot be certain just yet which property should really have been declared the main home, it is obvious that the Keens' main interest is in lining their own pockets and for that reason they must go.

Lords may stop Brown's anti-sleaze legislation getting onto the Statute Book by summer recess

Gordon Brown, who appears to have finally realised that the Government's reputation is even more tarnished than that of other parties in the wake of the expenses scandal, has made it clear that he wants the new anti-sleaze rules - which will introduce new rules governing what constitutes acceptable behaviour among MPs - to be in place in time for the summer recess which starts in just two weeks. The Conservatives and LibDems agree.

"Oi thank 'ee koindly, good sar. 'At penny'll pay fer moi 'ip replacement." Sometimes, the Lords are on our side.

Although MPs will continue working in their constituencies (and no doubt enjoying a junket or two in many cases), the Prime Minister is doubtless well aware that if the row is simply left for the two and a half months until their return without any obvious moves to bring an end to the widespread abuse we have all been made aware of in recent weeks, he is likely to find the public seething with discontent on his return. But rushed, desperate legislation is liable to be full of loopholes and overlooked mistakes.

Last week, we wrote: "However, hurriedly cobbled-together legislation such as this, designed to be rushed through and entered into the statute book in time for the summer recess, is not the way ahead. Haste, according to the old proverb, makes waste - this new bill must be carefully and intelligently thought through in order for the public and MPs alike to be certain that it contains no loopholes and will be effective in preventing the widespread abuse of expenses and other Parliamentary systems that we have seen in recent months."

A 12-strong Lords committee now says: "We are wholly unpersuaded by the government's case for this bill to be fast-tracked. There is an undoubted need to restore public confidence in the parliamentary system. It is not, however, clear to us that a cobbled together bill rushed through parliament will help rebuild public trust; on the contrary, if parliament cannot be seen to be scrutinising proposals with the thoroughness they deserve, public confidence in parliamentarians is likely to be further undermined. Governments should find the strength to resist falling into a temptation simply to see something done, which is no substitute for properly prepared policy and legislation." Sounds familiar, doesn't it - could it be Acid Rabbi has an aristocratic fan or two?

"It appears that the key driver for the bill is public perception, rather than any specific policy outcome," say the committee. The Lords seem to be more in tune with the commoners than the Commons these days. We do want something to be done, of course, but we want it done properly. Mr. Brown needs to start making the necessary changes immediately - in doing so, he'll prove to us that he really does mean to sort this mess out. Then, when the Commons returns, he can take a bit of time and ensure the job gets done correctly (and he'd better - a day may be a long time in politics, but two and a half months will most definitely not be long enough for the electorate to forget all about this). One way to really show he means it would be to abandon the recess, as some have suggested, this year; to realise that this is the biggest and most damaging scandal in British politics in a very long time, to recognise the emergency and importance of the situation and have all MPs continue working through the summer to get their House in order.

In these days of fast food, fast travel and soundbites we all tend to expect a quick solution. Sometimes, however, a problem requires care, attention and time if it is to be properly dealt with once and for all so that it never comes back. Mr. Brown can be certain that now the public understand the full extent and utter shamelessness of the abuse carried out by our Parliamentary representatives, we will be keeping a very close eye on claims made in the future. If there's a loophole and we catch even a sniff of someone taking advantage for their own personal ends, we'll be down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks - and Brown will be seen to have utterly failed.

If, on the other hand, he gets it right and prevents anything like this from ever happening again, he might just end up being considered one of the great Prime Ministers after all.

Tory peer claims £100K + expenses

No time to write about Lord Hanningfield now, but you can read all about his adventures at the tax-payers' expense courtesy of the Independent. We're sure you'll come to the same conclusion as us - ie; he's yet another greedy scam artist. Put it this way - he lives less than 50 miles from Westminster, but claimed that amount so he could avoid commuting. Dodgy? The police think so too.

George Osborne faces inquiry

George Osborne, the Conservative MP for Tatton who is currently caught up in a row resulting from his claim that the Government refused him permission to see information related to spending, is facing an inquiry into irregularities amongst his expenses submissions. Previous accusations made by the Daily Telegraph, which claimed that Mr. Osborne had deliberately avoided paying Capital Gains Tax, will not be investigated.

George Osborne says that he is "relaxed" about the investigation.
Image adapted from one by M. Holland at Wikipedia, used in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner will look into claims made by the chairman of Mr. Osborne's constituency Labour party chairman, Laurie Burton, that the MP wrongly designated a property that - going by Commons rules - should have been desiganted his main residence as his official second home. Those actions, already discussed on this blog, allowed Mr. Osborne to personally benefit to the tune of £748,000.

Mr. Burton also alleges that Mr. Osborne claimed to cover the cost of mortgage expenses which were, he says, "not necessarily incurred" - virtually a direct accusation of deceit. The MP became a figure of fun shortly after the Commons published details of expenses claims, which revealed that he had claimed £47 to pay for two CDs of a speech given by himself on the topic of "value for money."

That Mr. Osborne "flipped" the designation of his home for the purpose of personal financial gain seems unarguable. That may not have been strictly against the rules - though the second home allowance is intended to cover the cost of a home closer to Parliament than the MP's constituency home, there has in the past been no regulation stating that the second property need be anywhere near Westminster, only that the MP should spend less time there than at the main home - it seems obvious that he did abuse the system to satisfy his own greed, as have many others. Had any of the £749,000 been paid into the public purse, things would be very different; but thus far Mr. Osborne has paid back just £1195.49, including what the Conservatives' website calls "the cost of a particularly expensive car journey" - a £440 trip in a taxi, late one night. As a result, we can only hope that Mr. Osborne will find himself subject to the strictest punishment the Commissioner can use should he be found guilty.

In the meantime, David Cameron is so keen on being seen to be doing more in response to the expenses scandal than Gordon Brown, it would come as no surprise whatsoever were Mr. Osborne to be forced out of the Shadow Chancellor's office - even if only temporarily and until proven innocent - by the beginning of next week. We'll just have to wait and see.

Police WILL investigate MPs

Scotland Yard, following a suggestion yesterday from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson that officers were considering whether or not some MPs may have acted unlawfully in submitting dubious expenses claims, has announced that an investigation will go ahead.

The famous No.10 copper could be knocking on your door and asking you to answer a few questions soon, Mr. Brown, so best hide your kingsize fag papers just in case.

It is known that officers from Economic and Specialist Crime will head the investigation, but police have not yet given any indication concerning which MPs will be questioned. Two weeks ago it was said to be very unlikely that any Member would face prosecution but there has been widespread public anger since then, fuelled further by yesterday's publication of expense documents online.

Police investigators and legal experts have been working with Commons officials since suspicions that some of the claims might be unlawful first arose some time ago when the Daily Telegraph began printing details from their own copy of the documents. The Labour party has thus far declined to give any comment other than stating that it would be inappropriate for them "to comment on an ongoing police investigation," but further statements can be expected.

Let's hope they'll be examined every bit as scrupulously as any of us would be if we were caught trying to trick our employers into paying for either a business lunch we hadn't in fact had or an item unrelated to our work. A few MPs looks rather as though they may have committed fraud and it is to be hoped that, should they be brought to account, they will face the harshest punishment available to them so that they serve as an example to future generations of politicians who might consider using our taxes for their own personal enrichment.