Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
The expenses of every MP have been revealed online, including reimbursements claimed for communications, costs incurred in the running of an office, and required overnight stays.
However, several expenses have been blacked out for security reasons, such as addresses of second homes, regular travelling patterns, and money spent on security.
This has led to claims that in failing to include all information, some damning evidence has been omitted. Due to the exclusion of home addresses, it cannot be seen if any MPs have been ‘flipping’ their second homes – meaning designating a different address for their second home on a regular basis in order to receive a new set of allowances. This process had been legitimate, if dubious, until banned by Gordon Brown and David Cameron as a result of the expenses scandal.
Hilary Benn has claimed that the security reasons behind not providing MP’s addresses is rational, and that “the argument for keeping bank details, phone numbers and addresses confidential...is a fair one". Ironically, the security risk for MPs may have increased because of the expenses scandal.
The North Yorkshire MP Phil Willis called in police after receiving death threats after claims that his daughter was living in a home funded by the tax-payer. An anonymous caller allegedly rang his office to say that “someone should stab him in the belly for all the money he has claimed”. Mr Willis then voluntarily decided to step down at the next election, saying, “this isn't worth potentially dying for. What is the point? Why should people go through all this?”
However, several people have claimed that the omission of information for ‘security’ is simply an attempt to retain reputation. Heather Brooke, a campaigner for the Freedom of Information, has stated that “avoiding embarrassment has been the key motivating factor of what’s been deleted”. She added that due to her own reading of the complete list of expenses, the security argument had been “totally discredited”, and that "they have ruined the respectability of that exemption because nobody believes it anymore”.
Among other details not provided are unsuccessful requests. For example, the Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers’ claim for a £1,645 'duck island' is not included. This means that MPs who appear unscathed by the scandal may have reached for the opportunity to claim unnecessarily, and failed. Whilst encouraging us that the system sometimes works, public faith would lessen if a local MP made several failed attempts to claim for superfluous items.
Indeed, refusing to submit all information after calls to provide expenses in order to ascertain which MPs are consuming taxpayers’ money, may not inspire much public confidence. It is not just the extreme claims that have been eliciting mistrust, but also the stretches of the truth on a more local level. The minor needless claims have been seen as similar to claiming from a business’ expenses. Stephen Fry told Michael Crick from the BBC’s Newsnight that, “It’s not that important. It really isn’t”. His reason being that he himself had “cheated things and fiddled things”. However, swindling an office by claiming an extra £5 for lunch is not on par with spending an unnecessary £5 of tax payers' money. There is a difference between company money and public money.
I therefore decided to have a look at my own local MPs expenses: Labour MP Steven Pound. Despite his expenses not being in any way relevant to the privacy of a bank account, I felt like I was donning a pair of rubber gloves and rooting through his rubbish. However, due to the blacking out of most of the information on the page, there was not much to find out. The amount claimed for is visible, but most of the items or services claimed for are not. One of the pages of Communications Allowance is completely edited apart from two lists: number of items, and cost. I know that he spent a total of £1,305.37 on 36,261 items, but have no idea what they were or what they were for. That particular revelation of expenses has been deficient in revealing anything.
This furore over MPs' expenses may lead to a highly reformed system of claiming, but many will not feel enlightened by the recently released information. A censored revealing may add fuel to the accusations of sleaze, and will certainly not end it.
The list of MPs expenses can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/finances.cfm.
You must log in to submit a comment.
