MP's Expenses
Posted by Claire Ward, MP for Watford, at 14:47, Thu 21 May 2009:
Statement on expenses -Claire Ward MP
The revelation of claims made by MPs on allowances has rocked public confidence in our parliament and MPs. There is no doubt that the system for claims has failed to provide the necessary checks and robustness that the public expect. Although some changes have taken place more needs to be done and that is why I have supported the decision for Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to investigate the whole issues of MPs remuneration and allowances and to report with proposals for reform as soon as possible.
Allegations have been made against me by the Daily Telegraph and I want to deal with these points:
Why do I have a second home when many people commute daily from the town?
When I was elected in 1997, I promised to live in Watford and I moved into a flat as my only and main home. However the House of Commons had no routine time for finishing in the evenings and on most nights the House would finish after 10.30pm frequently sitting until the early hours of the morning. Initially I commuted by train or car to my home in Watford. As trains are very infrequent in the early hours of the morning and driving whilst extremely tired is rightly frowned upon I began to use the allowances to stay in hotels. However, not knowing when the House would sit late or when the business would collapse early meant that sometimes I had a hotel booked when I could have come back to Watford. At other times without a hotel arranged I ended up sleeping in my office. This was not a satisfactory arrangement and certainly would not help anyone to perform at their best.
I therefore claimed the allowance for a s econd home in London, as I was entitled to do, to enable me to use my time in Westminster as effectively as possible. MPs have two places of work – Westminster and their constituency and they must divide their time between the two.
I was married in 2003 and like most couples we were keen to have a family. In 2004 I moved my second home from a small one bedroom flat to a two bedroom flat in Westminster. I paid the stamp duty and the capital gains tax. Although the hours of the House of Commons had changed and there were fewer all night sittings, it had been agreed that any changes were temporary until the new parliament. From the start of the new Parliament in 2005, the House of Commons has been sitting on Mondays and Tuesdays at least until 10.30pm, on Wednesdays at least until 7.30pm and on Thursdays until 6.30pm. By the time I was re-elected in 2005, I had a child on the way and I had planned to continue dividing my time between Westminster and Watford to maximise my working hours and family time. My first child was born in 2005, though sadly she was still born. Following that election I was also appointed as a Government Whip, a post I continue to hold today, which requires me to be in Parliament for longer hours than most MPs.
I take my duties as an MP very seriously and I have always sought to do the best possible job in representing the people of Watford but I make no apology for having a far greater duty to my children. I believe that it is essential in any democracy that our Parliament should have people from all walks of life and all stages of life. Combining a family and a job with late hours is difficult but I try to balance the two. On nights when the Commons sits until late, I try to return to my Westminster flat to see the children at lunchtime or bedtime before returning to work. If they were permanently in Watford that would not be possible. As they are young, they are also in a position to travel between my two places of work. So on a Friday they are in a nursery in the constituency (until recently both were but only my daughter is currently at the nursery). We are then in Watford as a family until we return to Westminster for the start of the parliamentary week on a Monday. It does mean that my children have a pretty hectic life but I have to decide whether it is better to do that than not see them at all during the week when I would be working in Westminster for long hours and undertaking constituency engagements for considerable amounts of the weekend in Watford.
Claims for petty cash were made and the House of Commons paid some of these and then stated that further claims were not permitted? Why was the money not paid back?
The old allowances system, no longer in operation, allowed for MPs to claim household expenses or items bought up to the value of £250 without any receipts. In the mo nths following the purchase of my second home in 2004 I claimed for items which I mistakenly described as ‘petty cash’.On a further claim in July 2004, I clarified that these items were ‘petty cash –household items’ for example kitchen equipment and curtain material. Two further claims by the Finance Department were not paid. I did not challenge these but I checked with the office that previous claims were in order if they were for household items. I was told they were.
It is alleged that I ‘flipped’ homes to claim allowances?
This is totally untrue. I did not ‘flip’ homes. I had a small one bedroom flat as my second home. After I was married I sold my one bedroom flat and bought a two bedroom flat in anticipation of my family. This flat is within 10 minutes walk of the House of Commons. I paid the stamp duty and the capital gains tax in this transaction.
I tried to use the allowances reasonably to help provide a second home. The allowance does not provide the full costs of the second home and I pay towards this because , these days, it is important to me to be able to have my family accessible.
Last month, I voted to exclude all MPs with constituencies within 20 miles of Westminster from claiming the second home allowance. This will have a significant impact upon me and my family. However I supported it because I recognise that the public want to see change to MPs allowances and even though the allowance has enabled me to balance the late hours and family life, I accept that restoring public confidence in MPs and our Parliament must be a greater consideration than any one individual. Following the latest revelations about MPs’ claims, public anger is understandable and there is even more reason for serious change in the way in which MPs are recompensed for living costs when they need to be in Westminster.
We have all seen some appalling examples of MPs abusing the system and that includes members from all parties –Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour. No party can claim that they are not tainted by this abuse. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he demands the highest standards from Labour MPs and he has demonstrated that he will take tough action against those who fall short of these standards.
I hope that this has clarified matters and I ask for some understanding of the need to balance work and family life. As many thousands of my constituents who cases I have dealt with will know I have worked hard over the last 12 years to serve them and the people of Watford.
Claire Ward
May 20th 2009
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Mohammad Ishaq, 21:10, Thu 21 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I commute to Canary Wharf daily using the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines, often returning late at night. There is a frequent service late into the evening.
Westminister is also on the Jubilee line and nearer to Watford then Canary Wharf. Why is it ok for the average man to use public transport but not for the MPs?
Secondly Ms Ward contends that the house sits till at least 10:30pm on Mondays and Tuesdays. What I would like to know how many times in the last 4 years has she ACTUALLY attended the house late into the night?
Posted by Ben Glancy, 22:35, Thu 21 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I moved to Watford from Darlington (North-East) 4 years ago to be a software developer. I am not a labour voter and my below comments would apply to any party MP in general (within reason).
Clare probably would not agree with me here, but I think the papers should be better at analysing things factually and fairly before making assumptions, jumping the gun and printing their nonsense for any public effect. I think we know that the media in general are often void of responsibility and I would prefer to blame them for a lot of the issues we have today than MP's.
They seem to have this idea that MP's have to be seen to be like the average person, travelling in trains at all hours etc, earning bog standard wages, riding on bicycles to help the environment etc etc. This in my view is ridiculous, the expenses Claire Ward has made seem fair and justified in fact I think she should have claimed more and made her life easier.
At least try to see the point that MP's are serving the people, the more focused they are, the better service we get, therefore the better lives we and our children will get in the long-run. The expense claims should be minimising the burden of personal issues (children/finances/accommodation and travel) on MP's as much as possible, and to go around nit-picking is irresponsible and again, will cause us all problems in the long-run.
Let Clare get on with her role in society. I'm sure she has more important issues to get on with than having to defend herself for taking a very small, standard bite out of a large, openly available pie that certain others have mauled all over.
Posted by Wendy Smith, 11:51, Fri 29 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Many days ago I wrote to Ms Ward asking her to justify claiming over £23,000 last year in allowances when an MP in Swansea thought £5,000 was sufficient. The above statement does not clarify the position but is just a bunch of excuses. Using her family to garner sympathy does a huge disservice to working women, most of whom have exactly the same commitments and do equally important jobs. They do not expect a hand out from the public purse. These MPs helped themselves because they could because they made the rules.
Posted by Ben Glancy, 09:47, Sat 30 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
So would we expect every MP to claim for exactly the same amount then? There is a variation in circumstances, different people have different priorities, she has admitted putting her children before her work. If she was going to step down, it should be for that, but then it was a big clump of labour supporters that voted her in.
It's getting to the stage where there are absolutely no rewards whatsoever in being an MP, you just get all the public slating, the public embarrassment, the moaning from people who are never happy about anything etc... there is no good side, noone will want to do the job in the end. This is just a silly spin off from anger at bankers.
Posted by Mohammad Ishaq, 12:08, Sat 30 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
What's wrong with the idea that the MPs have to be seen to be like the average person? I am sure that there are a lot of hard working average individuals who make equally or greater contributions to society then MPs. It's this over inflated and elitist attitude of self-importance that has got the MPs into this mess in the first place.
I seriously question the contributions of the MPs in keeping this country running democratically and smoothly; especially in the light of the fact that 70 percent of legislations comes predigested and pre-packaged from Europe. The majority of MPs are hell bent on turning this country into a police state with there blind support of draconian legislation designed to dismantle what little freedoms remain. I would go as far to say that most of the MPs firstly serve themselves and then 'other' masters and not necessarily the constituents they claim.
The truth of the matter is that MPs have been caught with their pants down, fiddling the system and defrauding the tax-payer.They have been shown to be far from the honourable members of parliament they claim to be. Public confidence in the parliamentary system can not be restored until the so called 'bad apples' are purged and punished.
With regards to Wendy's point, I think its perfectly logical to assume that the further you live from work, the greater the amount of expenses incurred in order to 'get to work'. At least that is the case for the vast majority of us average people.
On the subject of misdirected anger from the bankers, remind me again whose job was it to legislate to regulate the excesses of the bankers?
Posted by Ben Glancy, 17:33, Tue 2 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
On your last point, it's not down to MP's to regulate banks unfortunately.
Also, how can an MP turn Britain into a police state? The idea is that each MP represents a certain district, with the intention that they can be run differently and respectively.
I think your complaints are more parliament based.
You say the further you live from work then the more costs you'd need. But there is more than a single variable here, it's not right to assume that only one variable comes into play. We are talking about priorities of life, children, family, travelling, work etc Most of all, if they really should be like ordinary members of public, why not accept that most of us, given the chance would claim for as many expenses as possible to make things easier. The rules need to change. Who cares who gets sacked and disgraced, it means nothing. If you don't like the expenses (its NOT a scandal), vote someone else in.
Seems by your reasoning, that even £5000 claim would have been too much... what exactly are they allowed to claim for?
Posted by Mohammad Ishaq, 12:40, Wed 3 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Bank regulations are a form of government regulation which subject banks to certain requirements, restrictions and guidelines. The government by extension is made up of MPs.
On the subject of MPs turning the country into a police state. The UK is moving in the direction of a police state, with biometric identity cards, mass surveillance and detention without trial all having been introduced by the government. Whose responsible? The government and an ineffective and incompetent opposition. The government and the opposition are made up of MPs. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good MPs who are standing up for human rights and civil liberties, but sadly they are a very small minority.
>> I think your complaints are more parliament based.
Yes, up to a point. Its the MPs that are in the best position to reform parliament.
>> You say the further you live from work then the more costs you'd need. But there is more than a single variable here
Yes, there are more variables at work here but the distance from work is in my opinion the biggest contributor to expenses incurred.
>> Most of all, if they really should be like ordinary members of public, why not accept that most of us, given the chance would claim for as many expenses as possible to make things easier.
I hope that most of us have a moral conscience and don't abuse the system. But I agree that the rules were criminally generous and open to interpretation and some MPs then abused those rules. Its precisely these MPs that I would like to see bought to book.
>> The rules need to change.
Agreed
>> Who cares who gets sacked and disgraced, it means nothing.
For starters, I care and a whole lot of other people care. MPs who have defrauded the tax-payer and fiddled the system must face criminal charges and be prosecuted. I don't really care who gets disgraced.
>> If you don't like the expenses (its NOT a scandal), vote someone else in.
I intent to. Thanks for the advise. In my view this is an unprecedented scandal. It has dominated the headlines for over three weeks and stoked public anger at politicians like never before.
>> Seems by your reasoning, that even £5000 claim would have been too much.
Depends on the legitimacy of the expense claimed whether its too much or too little. Even £0.01 claimed under false pretenses is too much and completely wrong.
>> what exactly are they allowed to claim for?
Legitimate expenses in line with the best practices in the private sector. Though I suspect that expenses policy is not overly generous for civil servants in the public sector.
Posted by Wendy Smith, 20:49, Wed 3 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I don't understand the confusion with Bankers and policticians. Bankers are business men and are there to make profits from their customers an idea a lot of people have only just got their heads around. We elect policticians to look after our interests not to profiteer from us. Was it not Ed Balls, close friend of Gordon Brown and who is awaiting his moment of glory, who gave the Banks freedom to do want they want?
Posted by Ben Glancy, 17:15, Mon 29 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Erm... I don't think anyone has got their heads around it yet... not many people have accepted.
Actually since I posted these above I'm a bit annoyed to hear that some MP's have other jobs. That is grating. That implies that their hearts and souls are not in the job, and there's not even any reason to claim ANY expenses, as they are receiving money left right and centre.
With the bankers, they took money selfishly and relentlessly with their unforgiving charges, and irresponsible tactics that end up losing people a lot of cash, not to mention putting big risk into the economy as a whole.
Greed. Same principle.
Doing something because you can instead of if you should. A lot of people complain about the nanny state, but it's things like this that happen that show that trust doesn't work. Only policy works.