Don't mind me... I'm not here...

Originally Posted by northwind

You keep talking like your situation is the standard and theirs is outrageous, but your situation isn't everyone's. They're no different from a lot of people working in the real world.

So most businesses are lax when it comes to expenses? I can't answer for every business, but I think I can quite confidently say that they're not.

Regardless; with a track record like they have, is it unfair to expect them to behave?

[northwind]

It's not being "lax", it's just being sensible, and I think you'll probably find it's more common than you'd think, in the big businesses which employ so many people. It's not about trust either for that matter, it's just cost/benefit accounting. Like running an honesty box- you don't get upset about the 25% that don't pay, you remember the checkout staff member you're not paying.

I'm not saying we shouldn't expect them to behave I'm saying lets not waste money trying to force them to behave, when there are far bigger fish to fry. The actual sums involved are low, in the grand scheme of things- even if an MP claimed the maximum every single day, and every penny was false, you're talking around £6000 as the absolute worst case. But of course, in the real world MPs really will be incurring expenses, and they're also aware that if they do claim the full amount every day, people will notice, so while there will be false claims they'll be a fraction of that. That wouldn't even pay for one idiot son to do the accounts. Stop worrying about the little fish, go after the big ones. MPS have no reason to put through small fraudulent claims when there's nothing stopping them putting through big fraudulent claims.

Originally Posted by northwind

It's not being "lax", it's just being sensible, and I think you'll probably find it's more common than you'd think, in the big businesses which employ so many people. It's not about trust either for that matter, it's just cost/benefit accounting. Like running an honesty box- you don't get upset about the 25% that don't pay, you remember the checkout staff member you're not paying.

I'm not saying we shouldn't expect them to behave I'm saying lets not waste money trying to force them to behave, when there are far bigger fish to fry. The actual sums involved are low, in the grand scheme of things- even if an MP claimed the maximum every single day, and every penny was false, you're talking around £6000 as the absolute worst case. But of course, in the real world MPs really will be incurring expenses, and they're also aware that if they do claim the full amount every day, people will notice, so while there will be false claims they'll be a fraction of that. That wouldn't even pay for one idiot son to do the accounts. Stop worrying about the little fish, go after the big ones. MPS have no reason to put through small fraudulent claims when there's nothing stopping them putting through big fraudulent claims.

The £25 bugs me because it is different to what any other public sector employee can expect. What I think is the most sickening however is the self-regulation. I'd rather that £2-3k was spent per MP watching what they spend, as (if you read the pdf) they've made it impossible for the public to look at their expenses. So that £20k annually for furnishings in their house is going to be spent honestly when you know that by law no one can look at it?! As if...

We can't have MPs living a life that is so different to the people the are supposed to represent. As in the other thread; they're keeping house prices high as it is entirely in their own agenda, as the 'little' expenses of life have no affect on them whatsoever.

[northwind]

Mmm, fair enough, I can understand that... It's not always about the money. their position IS different from everyday business. I'm not sure i like the idea of forcing them into "honesty" just by removing the opportunity to fiddle the books, I like it too much when they get caught out Like David Mcletchie and his taxis.

Just reading the PDF, I'd just read a summary, is this the full context of the £25 issue?

"Members may be re-imbursed for petty cash, the limit being £50 per month. Any claims for items costing £25 or more will need to be accompanied by relevant receipts."

If it is, then fiscally it's a much smaller issue than I thought, yes they can make claims under £25 without receipts but they can only run up £600 per year, really that's nothing. Have I missed another bit.

Originally Posted by northwind

Mmm, fair enough, I can understand that... It's not always about the money. their position IS different from everyday business. I'm not sure i like the idea of forcing them into "honesty" just by removing the opportunity to fiddle the books, I like it too much when they get caught out Like David Mcletchie and his taxis.

Just reading the PDF, I'd just read a summary, is this the full context of the £25 issue?

"Members may be re-imbursed for petty cash, the limit being £50 per month. Any claims for items costing £25 or more will need to be accompanied by relevant receipts."

If it is, then fiscally it's a much smaller issue than I thought, yes they can make claims under £25 without receipts but they can only run up £600 per year, really that's nothing. Have I missed another bit.

Hehe. I like that idea; leave it as open to interpretation as possible and then sting the deviant buggers! Thinking about that though. ... that's kind of what happened - and they changed the law to protect themselves!

The £25 bit was just before the minutes as far as I remember, I'll have a look in a tick. But it basically said that it was economically nonviable (what a hideous word).

Evidence in the form of invoices or receipts must be provided for all items of expenditure
of £25 or more. No receipt is necessary in respect of the flat-rate payment for subsistence.

Page 16.

[northwind]

Hmm- it just says that receipts are needed for everything over £25. The other section has the specific exclusion to say they're never needed under, this one doesn't. Wonder if that makes a difference?

They've worded it carefully; needless to say, they're covering their asses

[Biker Biggles]

They could save a fortune by incorporating minor expenses like these into an MP salary and doing away with all this claiming nonsense.MPs could be given free travel on public transport as a perk of the job(and to encourage them to experience the real world)and a set allowance towards running a second home,but only if the constituency is more than 50 miles from London.
All this to do away with the temptation to fiddle,and espacially to stop the perception that they are on the take.

[northwind]

That's sensible I think. Probably some incur a lot more expenses than others (scottish MPs always run up a lot more travel and accomodation expenses frinstance, for obvious reasons) but it could probably be made to work. Or, offer them an optout (like you used to do with company cars), you can either have expenses but have to justify every one, or you can have a flat rate. Or, have different flat rates depending on travel needs. Or something. Yeah, makes sense to me. I'll get it put into the next draft while we're setting the world to rights