A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the 
system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks and 
iPods.

Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in the 
capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious 
diversion of public funds."

He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance 
department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim for 
fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items below 
£250 or for £400 worth of food a month.

The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a greater 
breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John 
Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for a 
fishtank was recently refused.

Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a letter 
to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of allowances.

Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public funds 
for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an 
accident waiting to happen".

"The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too frequently 
results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a 
serious diversion of public funds)."

The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent report 
by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home allowance 
created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.

On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the
> system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks and> iPods.
>
> Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in the
> capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> diversion of public funds."
>
> He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim for
> fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items below
> £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a greater> breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for a> fishtank was recently refused.
>
> Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a letter
> to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of allowances.> Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public funds
> for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> accident waiting to happen".
>
> "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too frequently
> results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent report
> by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home allowance
> created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.

Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.

Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?

Martin  <><

On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the
> system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks and> iPods.
>
> Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in the
> capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> diversion of public funds."
>
> He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim for
> fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items below
> £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a greater> breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for a> fishtank was recently refused.
>
> Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a letter
> to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of allowances.> Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public funds
> for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> accident waiting to happen".
>
> "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too frequently
> results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent report
> by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home allowance
> created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.

A link to the artical would have sufficed.

Mike

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:50:35 -0800 (PST), "mart2306@hotmail.com"
 wrote:


>Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
>than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
>assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
>That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
>Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
>Martin  <><

They have cellars at the HoP. I assume it's already one of the most
guarded buildings in London, so why waste any more money?
Dormitories if need be.
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On 8 Feb, 20:45, Mogga  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:50:35 -0800 (PST), "mart2...@hotmail.com"
>
>  wrote:
> >Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
> >than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
> >assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
> >That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
> >Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
> >Martin  <><
>
> They have cellars at the HoP. I assume it's already one of the most
> guarded buildings in London, so why waste any more money?
> Dormitories if need be.
> --http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
> Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for deliveryhttp://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
> Or get it delivered for free

And have to move the wine? Darn.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:0ccac688-2650-4aed-9d18-779a067dbb28@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the
> system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks and
> iPods.
>
> Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in 
> the
> capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> diversion of public funds."
>
> He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim 
> for
> fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items below
> £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a greater
> breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for a
> fishtank was recently refused.
>
> Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a 
> letter
> to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of allowances.
>
> Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public 
> funds
> for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> accident waiting to happen".
>
> "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too 
> frequently
> results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent 
> report
> by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home 
> allowance
> created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.

Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.

Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?



I think they prefer to have the 22k per year cash living allowance, along 
with the £400.00 per month for food that they can claim, no proof of 
purchase needed.
They really dont need wages but no doubt they will vote themselves another 
whooping pay rise this year.

On 8 Feb, 23:33, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:0ccac688-2650-4aed-9d18-779a067dbb28@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the> > system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks and
> > iPods.
>
> > Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in
> > the
> > capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> > diversion of public funds."
>
> > He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> > department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim
> > for
> > fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items below
> > £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> > The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a greater
> > breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> > Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for a
> > fishtank was recently refused.
>
> > Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a
> > letter
> > to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of allowances.
>
> > Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public
> > funds
> > for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> > accident waiting to happen".
>
> > "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too
> > frequently
> > results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> > serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> > The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent
> > report
> > by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home
> > allowance
> > created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.
>
> Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
> than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
> assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
> That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
> Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
> I think they prefer to have the 22k per year cash living allowance, along
> with the £400.00 per month for food that they can claim, no proof of
> purchase needed.
> They really dont need wages but no doubt they will vote themselves another> whooping pay rise this year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think they need wages.
If nothing else, it allows those who are wanting to do the job to do
it without independant income. The alternitive is simply make it a job
for the rich.
I've no problem with them employing relatives. If there was open and
fair recruitment to fill the position.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:6b7aaffb-c967-470a-a573-5ba7262903fe@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Feb, 23:33, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:0ccac688-2650-4aed-9d18-779a067dbb28@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the
> > system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks 
> > and
> > iPods.
>
> > Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in
> > the
> > capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> > diversion of public funds."
>
> > He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> > department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim
> > for
> > fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items 
> > below
> > £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> > The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a 
> > greater
> > breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> > Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for 
> > a
> > fishtank was recently refused.
>
> > Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a
> > letter
> > to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of 
> > allowances.
>
> > Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public
> > funds
> > for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> > accident waiting to happen".
>
> > "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too
> > frequently
> > results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> > serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> > The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent
> > report
> > by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home
> > allowance
> > created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.
>
> Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
> than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
> assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
> That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
> Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
> I think they prefer to have the 22k per year cash living allowance, along
> with the £400.00 per month for food that they can claim, no proof of
> purchase needed.
> They really dont need wages but no doubt they will vote themselves another
> whooping pay rise this year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think they need wages.
If nothing else, it allows those who are wanting to do the job to do
it without independant income. The alternitive is simply make it a job
for the rich.
I've no problem with them employing relatives. If there was open and
fair recruitment to fill the position.

Martin  <><


Why do they need wages when they get over £250,000 in expenses, free food 
and housing, plus most if not all of them have other business interests. On 
top of that they can employ family in dubious circumstances.
Then theres is their pension scheme, which is ok for them but not for the 
public, on top of all this they pay themselves highly lucrative salaries 
with pay increases you can only dream about, again not for the public, but 
for them, no amount of pay is to much, and I have yet to see what they do to 
deserve such incredible incredible salaries.

On 9 Feb, 13:39, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:6b7aaffb-c967-470a-a573-5ba7262903fe@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Feb, 23:33, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in message
>
> >news:0ccac688-2650-4aed-9d18-779a067dbb28@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing the
> > > system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks> > > and
> > > iPods.
>
> > > Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home in
> > > the
> > > capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious> > > diversion of public funds."
>
> > > He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> > > department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could claim
> > > for
> > > fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items
> > > below
> > > £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> > > The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a
> > > greater
> > > breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a "John
> > > Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request for
> > > a
> > > fishtank was recently refused.
>
> > > Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a
> > > letter
> > > to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of
> > > allowances.
>
> > > Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public
> > > funds
> > > for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> > > accident waiting to happen".
>
> > > "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too
> > > frequently
> > > results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to a
> > > serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> > > The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent
> > > report
> > > by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home
> > > allowance
> > > created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.
>
> > Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
> > than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
> > assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
> > That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
> > Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
> > I think they prefer to have the 22k per year cash living allowance, along
> > with the £400.00 per month for food that they can claim, no proof of
> > purchase needed.
> > They really dont need wages but no doubt they will vote themselves another
> > whooping pay rise this year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think they need wages.
> If nothing else, it allows those who are wanting to do the job to do
> it without independant income. The alternitive is simply make it a job
> for the rich.
> I've no problem with them employing relatives. If there was open and
> fair recruitment to fill the position.
>
> Martin  <><
>
> Why do they need wages when they get over £250,000 in expenses, free food
> and housing, plus most if not all of them have other business interests. On
> top of that they can employ family in dubious circumstances.
> Then theres is their pension scheme, which is ok for them but not for the
> public, on top of all this they pay themselves highly lucrative salaries
> with pay increases you can only dream about, again not for the public, but> for them, no amount of pay is to much, and I have yet to see what they do to
> deserve such incredible incredible salaries.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For those who don't have other business interests, wages are one way
of having income.

I darsay some of the expenses they have, they have to pay out then
claim back. How do you pay out if you don't have money?
And pay increases? Ah yes, you must have missed their decision to give
themselves such a high percentage pay increase this year.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:4756cf4f-dbe3-4811-9fc8-5c9e210af707@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 9 Feb, 13:39, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:6b7aaffb-c967-470a-a573-5ba7262903fe@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Feb, 23:33, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in message
>
> >news:0ccac688-2650-4aed-9d18-779a067dbb28@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On 8 Feb, 14:35, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > A London MP accused many of his parliamentary colleagues of "playing 
> > > the
> > > system" of Commons expenses as it emerged they can claim for fishtanks
> > > and
> > > iPods.
>
> > > Backbencher Mark Field warned that MPs' allowances for a second home 
> > > in
> > > the
> > > capital was too often being abused, which was "tantamount to a serious
> > > diversion of public funds."
>
> > > He raised his concerns as Andrew Walker, head of the Commons finance
> > > department, told a Freedom of Information tribunal that MPs could 
> > > claim
> > > for
> > > fish tanks and iPods, and did not have to put in receipts for items
> > > below
> > > £250 or for £400 worth of food a month.
>
> > > The tribunal, which is ruling on whether MPs should have to give a
> > > greater
> > > breakdown of expenditure, was told the Commons authorities have a 
> > > "John
> > > Lewis list" to decide what can be claimed by MPs, though one request 
> > > for
> > > a
> > > fishtank was recently refused.
>
> > > Cities of London and Westminster MP Mr Field issued his warning in a
> > > letter
> > > to Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who has ordered a review of
> > > allowances.
>
> > > Mr Field stressed that the £23,000 additional cost allowance - public
> > > funds
> > > for MPs to pay for a second home close to Westminster - had been "an
> > > accident waiting to happen".
>
> > > "The time has come to abolish the ACA (which, in my view, all too
> > > frequently
> > > results in the improper use of Parliamentary allowances tantamount to 
> > > a
> > > serious diversion of public funds)."
>
> > > The Speaker's review of Commons perks and allowances follows a recent
> > > report
> > > by the independent Salaries Review Body which said the second home
> > > allowance
> > > created "the greatest scope for abuse" by MPs.
>
> > Hmmm....why can a block of flats not be purchased (or perhaps more
> > than one). With appropriate security, individual apartments can be
> > assigned MPs to use while in the capital.
> > That way at least the public wouldn't be forking out for a 2nd home.
>
> > Or even - a hotel room in a travelodge. How much is that per night?
>
> > I think they prefer to have the 22k per year cash living allowance, 
> > along
> > with the £400.00 per month for food that they can claim, no proof of
> > purchase needed.
> > They really dont need wages but no doubt they will vote themselves 
> > another
> > whooping pay rise this year.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think they need wages.
> If nothing else, it allows those who are wanting to do the job to do
> it without independant income. The alternitive is simply make it a job
> for the rich.
> I've no problem with them employing relatives. If there was open and
> fair recruitment to fill the position.
>
> Martin <><
>
> Why do they need wages when they get over £250,000 in expenses, free food
> and housing, plus most if not all of them have other business interests. 
> On
> top of that they can employ family in dubious circumstances.
> Then theres is their pension scheme, which is ok for them but not for the
> public, on top of all this they pay themselves highly lucrative salaries
> with pay increases you can only dream about, again not for the public, but
> for them, no amount of pay is to much, and I have yet to see what they do 
> to
> deserve such incredible incredible salaries.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For those who don't have other business interests, wages are one way
of having income.


They all have business interests, most if not all of them are wealthy 
business people in their own right, well educated or just well to do.




I darsay some of the expenses they have, they have to pay out then
claim back. How do you pay out if you don't have money?
And pay increases?



Ffs, have the bills sent to the house of course, addressed to the biggest 
money wasters and fiddlers in the land. The 22k plus £400 per month for food 
should keep them in pocket money.





Ah yes, you must have missed their decision to give
themselves such a high percentage pay increase this year.


They were asking for 66% pay increase if I remember correctly, I have no 
idea what the outcome was, obviously they decided to keep quite about it 
when they realised the country was up in arms.