NINETEEN MPs in our region have been ordered to pay back £34,562 of taxpayers' money in a long-awaited review of Parliamentary expenses.
The highest single demand was for £6,786.08 from Wigan MP Neil Turner, who was overpaid by thousands of pounds in mortgage interest claims and also received a duplicate payment for a TV licence.
Mr Turner has already repaid the money.
Gerald Kaufman – Labour MP for Manchester Gorton – was ordered to pay back a total of £4,533.69 relating to claims for two Waterford grapefruit bowls, a £1,851.74 rug and £4,791 of laundry and cleaning.
He was told he should have claimed the bowls on insurance as they were replacements for broken items.
Ann Winterton, Conservative MP for Congleton, was told to repay £143.00 claimed for a gas bill in March 2009. Her husband – Macclesfield MP Sir Nicholas Winterton – had already claimed for the bill on his own expenses.
And George Osborne, the shadow chancellor and Tory Tatton MP, was told to repay £284.26 of mortgage interest.
Ann Coffey (Lab, Stockport) was told to pay back £1,381.08 more than the maximum she had claimed for cleaning costs over five years.
Paul Goggins (Lab, Wythenshawe and Sale East) was asked for £1,075.93 after buying a suite of furniture that cost £2,826 – some £626 over the guideline limit – and receiving too much mortgage interest. Mr Goggins has already repaid £21,307.15 – far above the requested amount.
Flawed
The review, by Sir Thomas Legg, hit out at the 'deeply flawed' House of Commons expenses system.
It recommended a total of 390 MPs repay £1.3million. Almost £800,000 has already been repaid.
An appeals process overseen by former judge Sir Paul Kennedy cut the repayments demanded by £185,000 to a total of £1.12 million.
The highest single repayment demand has been made of Labour MP Barbara Follett, a total of £42,458.
Phil Woolas, the home office minister and Oldham East and Saddleworth MP, was the only MP in our region to successfully challenge a demand by Sir Thomas.
He was originally told to repay £3,530 for overpaid mortgage interest and gas charges. That amount was reduced to £886.16 by Sir Paul.
In a damning passage of the report, Sir Thomas said that between 2004 and 2009 senior figures in the Commons had been more focused on furthering the “immediate interests of MPs” than “propriety in public expenditure”.
The former Whitehall mandarin said the “culture of deference” in the Fees Office had left it “vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down, and of individual MPs”.
“In practice, during most of the review period, these influences tended more towards looking after the immediate interests of MPs than to safeguarding propriety in public expenditure,” he added.
Damaging
Sir Paul said it was “damaging, unfair and wrong” to publicly state that MPs who made apparently genuine claims within existing rules had engaged in “tainted” practices or had acted improperly.
He disputed the Legg review’s decision to order the wholesale repayment of so-called “conflicted transactions”- such as buying or renting a second home from a close relative, a company in which the MP had shares, or a close associate.
In his report, Sir Thomas said he had regarded all such claims - of which there were seven - “as tainted and the whole payment accordingly invalid”.
In a statement, the ruling Commons Members Estimate Committee (MEC) set a deadline of February 22 for MPs to arrange repayments of the amount demanded.
The largest sums ordered to be repaid by sitting MPs - after appeals are taken into account - were £42,458 by Barbara Follett (Lab, Stevenage), £36,909 by Bernard Jenkin (Con, North Essex), £31,193 by Andrew Mackay (Con, Bracknell), £29,398 by John Gummer (Con, Suffolk Coastal), £29,243 by Julie Kirkbride (Con, Bromsgrove) and £24,878 by Liam Fox (Con, Woodspring).
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 22 and replies | View All
Mark,Radcliffe. (04/02/2010 at 12:08)
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 12:36)
J smith (04/02/2010 at 12:39)
Womble, Westhoughton (04/02/2010 at 12:51)
dessie, manchester (04/02/2010 at 12:51)
Moorlok, London (04/02/2010 at 13:00)
Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......fact is these low-life cheating scumbags should be in JAIL!!!
Mark,Radcliffe. (04/02/2010 at 13:11)
lizard (04/02/2010 at 13:17)
Pushkin (04/02/2010 at 13:17)
Blue Haze, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 13:20)
Brook Lands (04/02/2010 at 13:49)
dessie, manchester
Dessie, you've got to vote, in my opinion if you don't you lose the right to moan about how this country is run otherwise. Also, how are you as the ordinary person supposed to change anything otherwise?
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 14:00)
Voting very rarely changes anything of any significance, particularly when it comes to restraining the state. If anything, it just seems to serve as a vehicle to get people to go away and do as they're told for the four or five years between elections.
Historically the most effective way for the ordinary person to change something has been non-aggressive resistance.
minnie royle (04/02/2010 at 14:12)
i hope the good people of Wythenshawe remember this come May
MPs gravy train, UK (04/02/2010 at 14:30)
And another thing, if you unelect us for doing a bad job, we only get £70k as a pay-off. How are we supposed to live off that? Its simply not British.
dessie, manchester (04/02/2010 at 15:53)
citycentre, manchester (04/02/2010 at 16:19)
Are you refering to British history? On a world view violent revolt or rebellion would seem to be at least as effective in introducing change, even if not always for the best.
Most colonial struggles for independence have been violent, and revolutions such as France and Russia certainly changed the situation of those countries.
Black Flag (04/02/2010 at 16:41)
Yes, I was thinking mostly of British history, although Ghandi and Martin Luther King crept into my thinking as well.
Violent revolt tends to be good at bringing about non-specific change, but poor at extracting specific change, because in the main, it tends to create a power vacuum in which one protection racket is replaced by another, so it's probably only a sound strategy when the situation is so bad that there is little chance of what springs up afterwards being worse and there is no other obvious means of improving the situation.
The British experience was probably one of the most pointless, as it saw a civil war and revolution to overthrow a monarchy, which was replaced by a puritan protectorate, which was then replaced by the same monarchy that had been overthrown.
Non-aggressive resistance tends to be better at extracting specific concessions, because it presents the concessions as a means by which the existing protection racket can remain in place, which is always the state's over-riding concern.
J.Hall, Tameside (04/02/2010 at 22:05)
Even with facts and substantiated information obtained but not observed in media sources,I conclude
our Political masters tentacles reach far and wide.
Brook Lands (05/02/2010 at 10:51)
Black Flag,
You could well be right, I was just replying to dessie's do nothing post however.
Belrock, England (05/02/2010 at 13:10)
With regard to the original subject of MPs expenses it look like some are to be prosecuted (believe it when it happens) and some will be paying back the money. I hope that the review of the methods of claiming and items that can be claimed for is clearly understood by all MPs in future. They should also be aware of the consequences in making fraudulent claims.
Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 13:27)
There was nothing that you could describe as resistance in that scenario, just appeasement, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
"I realise that this was an extreme case and would not condone any attempts to change government and their policies by aggressive means such as happened during the poll tax riots."
The poll tax is actually a good example of successful non-aggressive resistance. The riots got the headlines, but it was arguably the widespread non-payment which caused its downfall. With a serious hole in local government finances and far more non-payers than it was ever possible for the courts to handle, it became unworkable.
It may be 34 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (05/02/2010 at 16:31)
Oh yes there is prosecutions in the pipeline in total four an absolute disgusting amount of MPs to be prosecuted we had MPs flipping houses every year or so we had Alan Duncan who claimed more than £4,000 for gardening at second home in Rutland and total of £127,658 over six years. He has agreed to repay £5,000.
What sort of justice is that?
Talk about being had over a barrel if you want to see someone trying to justify their expenses just watch this YouTube clip of Margaret Beckett you’ll want to reach for a sick bag. If the moddies won’t allow this just YouTube it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59mUD33thLw
Nothing will change at the House of Westminster we will be getting a record number of new MPs at the next election but they will find a way of making money from the taxpayer. When asked MPs say I have become an MP to make a difference of course they have a difference to their bank book.