MPs 'tried to stop expenses being published'
TWO Westcountry MPs tried to stop expenses from being published, it has been suggested in a Sunday newspaper.
According to the Sunday Telegraph minutes of a meeting indicate Nick Harvey (Lib-Dem, North Devon) and David Heath Lib-Dem, Somerton and Frome), tried to convince parliamentary authorities to block publication of second home claims with fellow MPs Jack Straw and Theresa May.
-

The paper reported it had seen documents suggesting Mr Straw acted because he did not want the public to find out about renovations to his home.
It was claimed papers showed he led an all-party delegation of senior MPs which urged Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, to reject requests for second home expenses details.
Mr Straw's intervention came at a critical meeting in December 2006, when Mr Thomas had already drafted a "decision notice" which would have ordered the Commons authorities to publish details of claims under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA). At the meeting, Mr Straw – then Leader of the Commons – lobbied for Mr Thomas to drop plans to force the disclosure of the information.
In a "pre-meeting" with Commons officials, two MPs – Mr Straw and Mr Harvey – both appeared to cite examples of expense claims on their own second homes which they said could be "the cause of unwarranted focus" if published.
The minutes show Mr Thomas was seeking a compromise deal in which he would abandon his plans to force full disclosure, in return for a promise by the Commons to publish more limited additional details about ACA claims.
Following the meeting, Mr Thomas carried out a U-turn, substituting an alternative decision, stating requests from journalists could be turned down.
Mr Harvey has claimed £143,658 for his house in London since 2001, including interest payments on the £340,000 home which last year amounted to £1,258 a month, and £30 per month Sky Sports subscription.
Mr Heath claimed £23,002 in ACA last year for his second home, a rented property in London's Barbican complex. Most of the money was to cover rent.
All four MPs strongly dispute the accuracy of the minutes, but Mr Harvey said he had "floated hypothetical cases to probe just where lines would be drawn in various circumstances".
He told the Sunday Telegraph: "My own view before, during and after the discussion with Mr Thomas was that more information should be put into the public domain. I strongly shared his judgement that the right way to do this was by breaking expenditure down into categories."
Mr Heath said: "I was not aware of this document until a few weeks ago and I object to its implication that I did not want second home claims published. That was the opposite of my position then, and now."








5 Comments
by Allan, Brasil
Monday, October 19 2009, 3:06PM
“Nasty government but this is small fry money.No one shouting about the £12.8 Billion spent on immigration each year and rising.
Phrases like,not in our back garden and feather our own nests spring to mind.”
by Sandy Angove, West Cornwall
Monday, October 19 2009, 2:49PM
“This issue will run and run.... remember the discussion in August? MPs need to be in 2 places to work, Parliament and Constituency, unlike say someone who commutes to a job in a specific place. Because of this they may well need to maintain two places of residence, especially if their constituencies are many miles away from London. I think simplicity would bring transparency. 'Band' or 'zone' the country, radiating out from Westminster, and pay MP's an additional salary (thus fully taxable; no expenses claims if they spend more) according to which band they are in. London Constituency = no extra, Scotland = a substantial amount, to be determined by a truly independent body. It would be up to the individual MP's as to how they spent the extra salary - eg hotels, renting or buying a flat, but if an MP chooses to buy a flat, s/he must repay any profit when retiring. The whole issue of MPs' pay and allowances must be taken away from Parliament and the Civil Service and dealt with by an independent body. And there really must be VERY CLEAR rules as to what can and cannot be claimed on other items eg staff and travel. Across the world there are hugely differing amounts paid to our representatives (look at the USA 'packages'!!). A truly independent process, perhaps drawing on the knowledge within the Business sector, would perhaps reassure people that a fair process is in place.”
by alan, devon
Monday, October 19 2009, 2:43PM
“The police should be asking why Steen the Stink snoughted £130,000 second home expenses spent on his family home in Totnes?”
by Reg, Pt
Monday, October 19 2009, 1:51PM
“Scandalous - we "put them there" and they think they should rip us off. Not sure that's right eh guys?
It is right that all MPs' expenses should be 100% transparent - witholut any fudge factors added.”
by Taurus, Redruth, Cornwall
Monday, October 19 2009, 12:53PM
“As I see it, all MPs are a bunch of avaricious pigs. Above all other duties the first priority, it seems, is to leap on the gravy train. At the next election boot the existing MP out and vote for someone who will hold office, and solemnly promise not to rip us off. Of course, all expenses should be transparent to the electorate.”