Following news that the SNP had auctioned a lunch with Alex Salmond at Holyrood at a cost of £9,000 and one with his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, for £2,000 as a means of fundraising, it has now emerged that the pair have previously held six such lunches, leading to allegations that the SNP are abusing their position in government to allow cash for access.

The allegations have promoted a Labour party member from Edinburgh to report the First and Deputy First Ministers to the Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Stuart Allan.

Furthermore, the Parliament’s Corporate Body will investigate the matter to determine whether Parliamentary facilities have been used improperly for party political activity or gain.

Sir Alistair Graham, former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:

“It’s very important for public officials to keep their public duties quite separate from their party political fundraising activities … at first glance it looks like a clear breach of the rules.”

In an attempt to take the initiative, Alex Salmond has now written to the Parliament’s Officer, Alex Fergusson, to make clear that he would cancel any outstanding lunches until the Corporate Body had reported. He continued:

“I have identified four such lunches, and Nicola Sturgeon has identified one lunch and a tour – since none of them have taken place, there is therefore no difficulty in the Corporate Body considering the issue as a matter of principle. Nor indeed have any of the donations been given.

“Many other members will be in a similar position, and what I propose is that the Corporate Body, at its meeting on Wednesday, consider issuing interim advice that charity lunches can continue until such time as the whole matter can be fully discussed and comprehensive new advice issued to members.”

The First Minister’s moves, however, have not served to dampen criticism from opposition parties.

In what is described as an exclusive, The Herald’s Political Editor, Brian Currie, quotes what he says is as a source close to former Labour First Minister, Jack McConnell, as saying:

“The more serious charge is cash for ministerial access and private meetings.

“Ministers should not auction off their diary time to the highest bidder. They have to adhere to the highest standards to maintain the integrity of the office.”

The developments come just over two years since allegations of sleaze were made over how the Scottish Government handled a planning application for a golf resort by US billionaire and presenter of The Apprentice Donald Trump.

Similarly, on Wednesday, Left Foot Forward reported concerns by Scotland’s Information Commissioner over the Scottish Government’s handling of Freedom of Information requests, which he said “threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime”.

Whilst we await a report from the Parliament’s corporate body on the matter, Mr Salmond must surely understand how the events discussed at length in the Scottish media look to the world outside the First Minister’s Official residence at Bute House.

Scotland’s Corporate Body and standards watchdogs will have to ensure that any action that might be required is taken quickly to ensure Holyrood does not become embroiled in the sort of mess that many in Westminster have found themselves in.

Boris Johnson has used his weekly Telegraph column to rail against Peter Mandelson and his entourage’s decision to travel to the World Economic Forum in Davos by business class.

Johnson writes:

“Mandy and his entourage, of course, were flying sharp end; and as we struggled on down the aisle they subjected us to a certain amount of jocular raillery. They would send us some food, they scoffed, and perhaps a glass of champagne.

“In a spirit of glorious self-righteousness, we shouted back over our shoulders that this was the difference between Labour and Tories. Ours, I bragged, was the approach that the recession-battered public wanted to see. We were the ones who were being frugal with taxpayers’ money.”

Was Boris really annoyed about the additional expense the taxpayer would incur? Or the insult that being forced to accept a lower status during his 100 minute flight to Switzerland.

Never mind that Lord Mandelson denied this morning that the plane had first class, is this the same Boris Johnson that spent more than £4,500 of public money on taxis – including one bill for £237, during his first year in office?

Figures released in June 2009 revealed Johnson’s taxi claimed fares of more than £100 between May 2008 and May 2009. The receipts he submitted included one for £237.50 for a 7.5 mile journey across London – at £31 a mile. Other claims included a £99.50 return taxi from City Hall to Elephant and Castle, which are approximately a mile apart. And another expenses claim included a £99.75 cab from the Red Lion pub in Westminster to the City and a £101.83 return cab from City Hall to the Stock Exchange, just 2.4 miles away. There were many more examples of Boris’ taxi habits and how he is “being frugal with taxpayers’ money.” It is also worth noting that Mayor Johnson can travel for free on the tube.

He closes his opinion piece with this statement:

“The servants of the people should travel with the people.”

Quite.

Our guest writer is Peter Carrol

Boris Johnson is under mounting pressure to explain precisely why he has stepped down as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) – just 15 months into the role and less than two years after being elected on a manifesto which pledged to “provide strong leadership” by “taking responsibility and chairing” the MPA.

It was one of five pledges made by the Mayor, the failed fulfilment of which calls into question his ability to meet the other four promises he made, to make public transport safer, tackle gun and knife crime, help the victims of sexual violence ,and provide an accountable police service.

Questions will also be asked as to how, if he’s too busy to chair the MPA, he is able to write a weekly column for The Daily Telegraph – at a salary of £250,000 – a point made by Liberal Conspiracy and in a comment on The Guardian:

“Isn’t the important point that Boris spouted on about how he would chair the MPA in his manifesto and has now gone back on that promise? Not enough time indeed? He manages to find the time to write his chicken feed Telegraph columns doesn’t he?”

Last week, the Mayor’s ‘island airport’ idea was slapped down by David Cameron, who said it was “not our policy”, adding:

“Building airports is not his responsibility”

And yesterday he refused a Freedom of Information Act request to release secret correspondence between himself and Prince Charles regarding “hugely sensitive planning decisions and major financial and political deals”, with today’s Standard asking:

“What’s to hide?”

Ministers in Scotland have confirmed that they will enforce pay freezes for top public sector managers and civil servants in order to keep public spending under control as the financial squeeze begins.

Commenting on the move, a spokesperson for the Scottish Government said:

“Scottish ministers have already taken a pay freeze, which will also apply to senior civil servants. The Scottish Government has agreed to extend that approach to the highest-paid people across the public sector whose pay arrangements come under our control.”

The news came just days after the Liberal Democrats called for a pay freeze as a condition for support of the Budget. Since the SNP govern as a minority administration, Lib Dem support will be crucial to see their spending plans passed.

The developments came as news emerged that half of all quango bosses in Scotland have failed to commit to forgoing their bonuses for next year, despite calls for them to do so by Finance Secretary, John Swinney last year.

Among some of the most controversial bonuses are:

The Sunday Herald quotes a source close to Mr Swinney has saying:

“John has now written twice to public bodies calling on their bosses to waive any bonus. In our view, the momentum will build and the more who agree to do it, the more people will expect the others to follow suit. John is on the case, and already significant progress has been made.”

Scottish Labour’s Finance Spokesman, David Whitton concluded:

“Any chief executive who has taken a bonus in these particularly difficult times will have to answer in the court of public opinion.”

For the Liberal Democrats, their Finance Spokesman, Jeremy Purvis said:

“It’s unacceptable that any high-paid public sector worker should receive a bonus this year. The government has had ample time to sort bonuses out and needs to get a grip. The public won’t understand why quango bosses and top civil servants are getting bonuses during the worst economic situation since devolution.”

Earlier last week, Conservative Leader in Scotland, Annabel Goldie announced her party’s proposals for a pay freeze for all public sector workers earning more than £18,000 which, they believe would save thousands of jobs during the recession. Ms Goldie said:

“The freeze is not about penalising people – it is about saving people’s jobs. A pay freeze on this scale is the equivalent of saving 10,000 jobs.

“I would rather people were in work with a pay freeze than out of work with no pay at all. We are all in this together and when I say ‘we’ I mean the public sector and the private sector, I mean Scotland and England, I mean the politicians and the people.”

Reacting, Scottish Labour Leader, Iain Gray attacked the plan:

“The Tory plans will actively damage the economy by taking the money out of the pockets of hard-working Scottish families.”

As this week we brace ourselves for the New Year round of announcements on UK bank profits (which will be kicked off by JP Morgan this Friday), it’s significant that over 100 MPs have now signed up in support of Early Day Motion 191 that calls for a High Pay Commission.

JP Morgan are expected to report bumper profits coupled with plans for excessive bonuses (despite the Bankers’ Windfall Tax), with other banks bound to follow suit. Soon after, a number of things will begin to become very clear.

First, that the popular one-off Bankers’ Windfall Tax, first championed by Compass and others, will almost certainly raise billions in extra revenue for the Treasury, not the modest £500 million originally forecast in the pre-Budget report in December – this is good news for the government in clawing back some of the hundreds of billions spent in bailing out the banks.

Secondly, however, and perhaps more important is that as a short-term, one-off measure, the Bankers’ Windfall Tax is likely to have largely failed to curb the culture of excessive rewards in the City – which the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, stated in December was the chief reason for introducing the one-off levy. This should worry us all.

We literally cannot afford as a country to allow the City to go back to business as usual – because if the government fails to act and we allow the culture of excessive rewards to continue unchecked then watch out for another financial crisis – something we would be unable to pay for.

As a result there is now a more compelling case than ever for the government to urgently establish a public High Pay Commission. Only then will the government be able achieve the aim of a lasting and long-term settlement to the issue of high pay and excessive rewards and effectively tackle the bonus culture.

That is why growing numbers of MPs, from a range of parties, are supporting the call for a High Pay Commission and the reason why the number will only keep growing in the days ahead as we hear of more windfall bank profits coupled with plans for exuberant and largely unearned windfall bonuses.

So while we should all be delighted that the Bankers’ Windfall Tax will raise billions of extra revenue for the government to use for socially useful purposes, not least in helping our unemployed young people, we must now see the government take further action to curb the excessive bonus culture. It would make a very good start by committing to establishing a public High Pay Commission so we can find a lasting solution to the problem of excessive pay.

Our guest writer is Gavin Hayes, General Secretary of Compass

David Cameron’s reverse gear swung back into action last night as he hastily withdrew an amendment to the Constitutional Reform bill which he claimed would force all Parliamentarians to be full UK taxpayers.

The amendment would have applied only to MPs and Peers “treated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as being domiciled and ordinarily resident in the UK” – crucially exempting Tories like Lord Ashcroft who, by classifying themselves as merely “resident” and not “ordinarily resident” could avoid paying UK tax on their overseas earnings.

Though undefined in the Tax Acts, HM Revenue & Customs document HMRC6 – “Residence, Domicile and the Remittance Basis” – outlines the difference between “resident” and “ordinarily resident” status:

Resident but not Ordinarily Resident:

“You can be resident in the UK but not ordinarily resident here. When we talk about someone being ‘not ordinarily resident in the UK’ we mean that although they are resident in the UK for a particular tax year, they normally live somewhere else.

“For example, if you are resident in a tax year because you have been in the country for more than 183 days but you normally live outside the UK, it is likely that you are not ordinarily resident.”

Ordinarily Resident but Not Resident:

“You can be ordinarily resident in the UK but not resident. For example, if you normally live in the UK but, during a tax year, you have gone abroad for a long holiday and you do not set foot in the UK in the tax year. This is very rare.”

Prior to the volte-face, Justice Secretary Jack Straw had said:

“Read the small print of the Tory amendments and you’ll find a loophole that would enable individuals to escape UK tax on their foreign earnings. It looks like Lord Ashcroft clicked his fingers, and Mr Cameron jumped.”

He later added:

“It is deeply embarassing not to say inept that they couldn’t even draft a simple amendment which made sense – either that or they hoped no-one would notice an extraordinary attempt to keep Lord A out of this issue.”

Mr Cameron had hoped the amendment would draw a line under a series of damaging stories about Tory tax avoidance. Yesterday Left Foot Forward highlighted the Conservative leader’s poor response to the scandals, and on Sunday the Observer calculated that Zac Goldsmith “avoided £5.8m tax” as a non-dom – this despite him claiming his nom-domiciled status “delivered very few benefits”.

UPDATE 12:15

Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, standing in at PMQs, has just said that all lawmakers who are “domiciled, resident and ordinarily resident”, would have to pay tax, saying there should be “no representation without taxation”, and for the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable has demanded Lord Ashcroft be disbarred from Parliament.

Hundreds of public sector fat cats received inflation-busting pay increases, according to data prepared by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

News coverage this morning focused on the levels of pay with The Sun showing that “800 fat ‘crats earn £150k” and the Telegraph headlining that “300 public sector workers earn more than Prime Minister”. But the increases may come as a greater surprise, particularly against a backdrop of calls – from groups like the TPA – for a pay freeze on public sector workers and for restraint from bankers in setting bonuses.

Nearly two-thirds of the 648 high paid public sector employees for whom year-on-year data is available received pay increases above 3 per cent. Meanwhile, only 16 per cent of staff saw their pay decrease. Retail prices rose by 4 per cent in 2008 but are expected to fall in 2009. Consumer prices rose by 3.6 per cent last year and have averaged 2.2 per cent so far this year.

John O’Connell of the TaxPayers’ Alliance told Left Foot Forward:

“An average increase of 5.4 per cent would be very generous even when things are going well, and many of these rises are obscene. Given the state of the economy and the huge deficit, public sector workers in general should face pay freezes but the bosses at the top should be taking sizeable cuts. Whether you’re a banker or a quangocrat, taxpayers cannot afford to pay these massive sums, and it would be wrong to demand restraint from ordinary workers while those at the top get fatter and fatter.”

NB: Proportions are indicative because pro rate data for 2007/08 was not available in all cases.

As it was reported that some bankers could receive bonuses worth £15 million this winter with hundreds of the payouts expected to go to RBS, John Prescott’s website Go Fourth has relaunched its ‘Give Up the Bonus‘ campaign.

The main page of the website says:

“In February the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which received £20 billion of taxpayers’ money, tried to pay out £1b of it in bonuses to bankers and traders. We believed this was morally and economically outrageous and had to be stopped. Thanks to 30,000 people signing our Give Up The Bonus petition, RBS reduced the payout from £1b to £175m. Now RBS reportedly wants to pay a total of £1.5bn in bonuses to investment banking staff, and the board has threatened to quit if the government blocks the move.”

The chart below from the House of Commons ‘Economic Update – October 2009‘ (p.8) shows that for much of 2009, wage increases have been accelerating only because bonuses have been increasing. The thicker black line which excludes bonus payments shows that wage increases have been decelerating. This pattern is unusual since the two lines normally move in the same direction.

Financial economist and Left Foot Forward contributor, Duncan Weldon, outlined on his economic blog yesterday that RBS are employees have not even put in a good performance this year with a return on total assets worth £464.6 bn of just 1.35 per cent, well below the return that would have been received had the bank bought “simple, risk free 10 year UK government bonds”

The Conservative party wish to charge non-doms £25,000 per year for living in the UK. Now that his tax status has been revealed, will Zac Goldsmith pay a flat annual fee for each of the 16 years that he has been a non-domiciled adult?

At Conservative party conference 2007, George Osborne said:

“There are currently a number of people living in Britain who register for non-domiciled tax status offshore. It is a good thing for Britain that they live here and bring their talent and their investment to our economy.

“I make this promise: I am not going to tax all that income as Gordon Brown has persistently threatened to do. But in return for that promise and the certainty it brings, we will charge a flat annual levy of around £25,000 for those who register for non-domicile status”

Mr Goldsmith, aged 34, has already contributed £264,179 towards the costs of his election campaign in Richmond Park as well as additional donations to the Conservative party worth £14,202. He is reported to be worth £200 million so a £400,000 payment for his 16 years of adulthood would appear to be a fair price.

Goldsmith speaks tonight at an event in central London titled “Call to Action” where among other questions, he will address “How do we spend our collective wealth?”.

UPDATE 18.00

The event tonight asking how we spend our collective wealth answers another question about how to amass it: charge £10 to get in.

The company founded by Conservative Treasurer Michael Spencer would gain £22.5 million from the corporation tax reforms he is advocating. The generous Tory donor believes that George Osborne may go further than the current Tory policy of slashing corporation tax rates from 28 to 25 per cent.

Spencer told the Financial Times:

“George Osborne – who I know extremely well and is indeed a friend of mine – has made it clear that the Conservatives will cut corporation tax to 25 per cent and potentially significantly lower than that.

“And I am hopeful that over the next Parliament (and I speak personally; I’m not speaking as an official spokesman for the Conservatives) that we will get corporation tax down towards the 20 per cent level under a Conservative regime. So that is good news.

“And the Conservatives have also made it quite explicit that this increase in the top rate of tax from 40 to 50 per cent, they see it as a temporary move. So I believe, and I hope, and I expect that that will be reversed in the foreseeable future.”

His company Icap posted pre-tax profits of £281 million in 2008/09. The existing Tory proposals to reduce corporation tax from 28 per cent to 25 per cent would save his company £8.4 million in tax over this period. A further decrease to 20 per cent would reduce Icap’s tax payments to £22.5 million in total. The Tory corporation tax cuts come at the expense of capital allowances, necessary to prevent further declines in investment.

Since the last election, Michael Spencer has given more than £100,000 to the Conservative party in individual cash donations as well as £86,464.50 in non-cash donations including travel. If a Conservative government were to bring in a 20 per cent corporation tax rate it would represent a 12000% return on his investment.

UKIP leadership candidate and West Midlands MEP Mike Nattrass is threatening to sue the Sunday Times over allegations he is being investigated by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Nine days ago, Daniel Foggo, an exert in UKIP sleaze, who first revealed the corrupt activities of convicted fraudster Tom Wise in 2005, and again in 2007, wrote:

“Michael Nattrass, who has represented the West Midlands in the European parliament since 2004, is the subject of an inquiry into whether Denis Brookes, one of his former aides, was paid through public funds while he was working as a regional organiser for UKIP. The EU does not allow taxpayers’ money to be used to pay party officials.”

He added:

“It has also emerged that Nattrass was using a business of which he was an equity partner as the ‘paying agent’ for all his assistants’ salaries provided by the EU. Between 2004 and summer this year, all of his assistants’ allowances were channelled through the business account of Nattrass Giles, a chartered surveyors in Birmingham which he founded nearly 30 years ago.

“Nattrass was a signatory to the bank account, although he insisted last night that the administration was handled by another partner in the firm who has since died.”

Nattrass’s threat is revealed by UKIP whistleblower “Junius” on his blog, and is rebutted emphatically. In a letter, Nattrass is reported to have said:

“I am pleased to say there is no truth in the Foggo article. Foggo knows this because we spoke prior to him going to press … but it made no difference … so much for the facts. There is no enquiry into paying agents. So there is no ‘Fraud Enquiry’.”

Nattrass ends his statement by saying:

“It appears the Times want to stop me in the leadership race. I like a challenge like this. But it may be time to go for damages against the Sunday Times…”

A spokesman for OLAF told Left Foot Forward:

“We do not comment on individual cases, we are only the administrators; we investigate, but we can’t prosecute. It is up to national authorities. I cannot tell you that we are not investigating Mr Nattrass.”

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has claimed his party is “absolutely ruthless” in dealing with sleaze – despite it taking them four years to get rid of jail-bound fraudster Tom Wise.

Speaking on yesterday’s Daily Politics (8:06), he said:

“When he came to Brussels in 2004, I put a code down, that I asked them all to obey by. He refused to do so. He then, when he was found out, lied to me, and for that reason I took the whip away from him.

“You know, in every party, in every company, there are bad apples, the question is how do you deal with them, and in UKIP we’ve been absolutely ruthless.”

However, Farage’s actions, as Left Foot Forward highlighted on Tuesday, appear to have been less than ruthless. Wise, who was sentenced to two years’ jail yesterday, first came to the attention of the authorities in 2005; he remained a member of UKIP until earlier this year.

Farage, who is standing down as leader, also derided all but one of the candidates vying to succeed him – including three of his colleagues in Brussels – West Midlands MEPs Mike Nattrass and Nikki Sinclaire and London MEP Gerard Batten.

He said (1:32):

“There are five candidates standing for leader of UKIP, only one of them is a serious and credible candidate, and that’s Lord Pearson, who has had major achievements in his life in business and in politics too. If Lord Pearson gets that job, and I’m still around leading our party in the European Parliament, I would argue UKIP is stronger and would be for several years to come.

“If it’s not Lord Pearson, things will be tricky, yes, but I think it will be Lord Pearson. I think he is so head and shoulders above all the other candidates.”

The European Anti-Fraud office (OLAF) is investigating the United Kingdon Independence Party over their MEPs’ serial misuse of expenses. The probe follows the conviction last week of former UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who embezzled more than £30,000 of taxpayers’ money into a secret bank account, buying expensive bottles of wine and a car.

Wise’s deception first came to light in October 2005, when the Sunday Telegraph revealed the £36,000 scam. Three days after OLAF were alerted in the wake of publication, he began repaying £25,530 in an attempt to cover up the fraud. Two years later, in March 2007, the Sunday Times uncovered bank statements showing that Wise “funnelled £39,100 of taxpayers’ money into his own account with the Cooperative Bank – from which he paid [his secretary] Jenkins just £13,555”.

In May 2008, a News of the World undercover investigation revealed that Wise had told a reporter that membership of the European Parliament was an “opportunity to make shedloads of money” and said “yes, I am milking the system”. It was not until the following year, in February 2009, that UKIP finally severed all ties with Wise – four years after the initial allegations. He remained an MEP until June.

In addition to Wise, several other UKIP MEPs have been investigated by OLAF in recent years:

Left Foot Forward will continue to monitor UKIP’s activities and update readers on the investigation.

The chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, claims he is doing “God’s work”.

In an interview with The Sunday Times yesterday he said:

“We’re very important. We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.

“We have a social purpose.

“If the financial system goes down, our business is going down and, trust me, yours and everyone else’s is going down, too. The financial system led us into the crisis and it will lead us out.”

When asked about public anger at the $12 trillion the US Government has pumped into banks and the economy, only to see bankers making even more money, he added:

“Everybody should be, frankly, happy.”

Mr Blankfein’s attitude, and belief that banks have a “social purpose”, is in sharp contrast to the mood in the City, where Adair Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority, described some financial activities as “socially useless”.

In his Mansion House speech in September he said:

“I do not apologise for being correctly quoted as saying that while the financial services industry performs many economically vital functions, and will continue to play a large and important role in London’s economy, some financial activities which proliferated over the last ten years were ‘socially useless’, and some parts of the system were swollen beyond their optimal size.”

Today’s Daily Telegraph reports that Sir Ian Kennedy, the new head of IPSA – the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, set up to “represent a break from old practices and put in place a new independent system” of MPs’ pay and expenses – “plans to rip up the proposed reforms” unveiled in the Kelly Report earlier this week.

Among the reforms he is unhappy about, reports the paper, are the ban on members employing relatives and the requirement of MPs to hand back profits from the sale of second homes. Another key recommendation suggests banning MPs from claiming mortgage payments, instead allowing them to claim rent payments.

This recommendation especially should not be simply nodded through without analysing the implications of it – in particular the implications on the cost to the taxpayer. Obviously the cost of mortgage payments will vary depending on what type of mortgage MPs take out and the lenght of time they are repaying it over; similarly, the cost of rent payments will depend on where the MP is living.

The recommendation does have the potential to lay additional costs to the taxpayer under certain circumstances. For example, an MP who has a 30-year interest rate tracker mortgage on a house in the south east that is purchased at the current average asking price would be paying around £815 a month in mortgage repayments.

By contrast, if that MP was renting a house in the south east at the average rental asking price, the cost would be £1,108 a month. This arrangement under Kelly’s proposals would cost the taxpayer an additional £293 a month, or £3,516 a year.

It must be noted that in some instances Kelly’s recommendation would save money but the benefit or liability the taxpayer gets in result of the recommendations has the potential to vary dramatically by the individual circumstances of MPs.

These proposals should be seriously looked at the by the independent committee that will now review Kelly’s recommendations to make sure that the new system that is implemented does not end up costing the taxpayer more money.

While it may seem unfair for MPs to get contributions towards a long-term asset they will own, the ultimate goal of this review must be to create a fair system that costs the taxpayer the least amount of money.

Our guest writer is Jack Storry

Former UKIP MEP Tom Wise faces up to seven years in jail after being convicted of false accounting yesterday. Wise embezzled £36,000 of taxpayers’ money into a secret bank account – £3,500 of which was spent on two bottles of wine.

The funds were from his £3,000-a-month secretarial allowance, of which only £500 was actually paid to his secretary, the rest being spent “in support of his own interests”.

Wise’s demise brings into focus the scope for corruption in Brussels, which has been overlooked in light of the scandals at Westminster and the publication this week of the Kelly Report. Members of the European Parliament receive a €4,202-a-month (£3,776) general expenditure allowance and a daily subsistence allowance of €298 (£268) – neither of which have to be justified.

The authorities have, however, made the system more transparent; from June, the €17,540 (£15,764) staffing allowance – which Wise abused – was paid directly to staff, not to parliamentarians, and MEPs were no longer able to have close relatives among their staff, one of the new measures to be brought in at Westminster.

Wise, a former policeman, was brought down by a News of the World sting, telling an undercover reporter that his election to the European Parliament was an “opportunity to make shedloads of money”.

He added:

“At the end of the day I made £2,000 this week. I don’t know what an MEP’s job is. No one’s ever given me a job description. I’ve no idea what an MEP should or shouldn’t do. So you make it up as you go along.

“Yes, I am milking the system, in as much as I’m overpaid for the amount of expenses I’ve had. But the system is-‘Ignore what it’s cost you, this is what we pay you!’ I clean up the profit. I’ve spent whatever-it-was pounds tonight and I’ll still make a humungous profit. Thank you very much!”

The publication of the report into MPs’ expenses, pay and staffing arrangements by Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life has been dubbed by Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg as an “opportunity to start restoring people’s trust in the work of MPs”. Indeed, in a rare sign of political unity, Prime Minister’s Questions saw all three main party leaders united in accepting Kelly’s recommendations in full as a key step to restoring people’s faith in Parliament.

However, one anomaly remains, namely Sinn Féin’s five Westminster MPs.

Despite maintaining a policy that they will not take up their seats in the House of Commons, in May the Telegraph reported that Sinn Féin MPs claimed up to £500,000 in public funds to cover the costs of flats in London. This followed a decision by the House of Commons in 2001 to pass a motion, proposed by Robin Cook, which effectively allows Sinn Féin members to use all Parliamentary facilities and allowances.

In response to criticisms of the size of the second home allowances they were claiming, in August, Sinn Féin MP for Newry and Armagh Connor Murphy told the Belfast Telegraph:

“The party has taken the decision not to renew these leases and instead our MPs will use hotel accommodation when in London on constituency business.”

Given the extent of the public’s anger against MPs and their use of expenses, Sir Christopher had the opportunity to take a firm stand against those MPs prepared to use public funds to cover the costs of living away from home, despite not being prepared to become full and active members of the House of Commons.

His report said:

“It is difficult to believe that paying rent for permanent accommodation when the MP concerned is only an occasional visitor to London can reasonably be regarded as representing value for money.”

However, the Committee on Standards in Public Life seems to suggest that whilst Sinn Féin cannot use public money for the rent on a flat, it “welcomes the Sinn Féin decision to claim only hotel expenses”.

Such inconsistencies in Kelly’s report, are as he suggests, based largely on political decisions made by Parliament itself in 2001, with suggestions that the decision to allow Sinn Féin’s MPs to access allowances were based on making progress on the peace process. Given the great progress made since the 2001 vote, with a relatively stable coalition executive in Stormont now putting dialogue ahead of violence, and given the sheer public backlash against the MPs’ expenses regime, it would perhaps be a good time to review the treatment of those MPs who simply fail to represent their constituents properly in the chamber of the House of Commons.

In other developments likely to be of interest in Belfast, the Kelly committee’s recommendation that MPs be banned from employing members of their own family are likely to have a substantial impact on the Democratic Unionist Party couple, Iris and Peter Robinson, both MPs, who between them are reported to employ four family members.

Furthermore, Kelly has advised that the practice by which some MPs also sit in a devolved legislature at the same time, know as double jobbing, be brought to an end in 2011, a recommendation that will have an impact on 16 joint MPs/MLAs.

Reacting to the report, Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson said:

“The final systemic problems that have arisen come from the fact that Members of Parliament have been setting their own pay and conditions, have been setting their own allowances.

“It would be entirely wrong if MPs were to unpick the recommendations.”

This despite Mr Robinson’s wife, Strangford MP Iris Robinson, telling Northern Ireland paper The Newsletter that the expenses scandal had become close to a “witch hunt” on MPs.

For the SDLP, leader Mark Durkan – whilst welcoming moves to abolish dual mandates – believes that the 2011 target suggested by Sir Christopher for ending the practice was too long.

Ulster Unionist deputy leader Danny Kennedy added:

“This is an abuse created by some parties in Northern Ireland. It is the DUP and Sinn Féin who are the culprits, abusing public trust and confidence by allowing all of their MPs to double- or triple-job in the Assembly.”

Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations will now be considered by the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which was established to take decisions on allowances, expenses and pay out of MPs’ hands.

As MPs continue to defy the findings of Sir Thomas Legg’s enquiry, Left Foot Forward is urging readers to show their displeasure with Britain’s parliamentarians by voting for Heather Brooke (@newsbrooke) as Reformer of the Year.

Ms Brooke is a Freedom of Information campaigner who, according to Reform, “played a leading role in the MPs’ expenses saga, winning a High Court case against the House of Commons for the full disclosure of second homes allowances. The ruling was the driving force behind the resulting reform of the Parliamentary expense system.” She runs the Your Right to Know website. The closing date for the annual award is 31 October 2009.

Writing for Progress, Labour Councillor Theo Blackwell, says:

“One person who deserves much more public recognition than she has received so far for her work is Freedom of Information campaigner and journalist Heather Brooke …

“If the state currently hands out honours to those who have dedicated service for the public good, then the first on their list should be those journalists who - like Brooke – asked the right questions and, in the best traditions that people on the Left have campaigned for, didn’t let up when faced with bureaucratic denial.”

MPs continue to miss the public mood with Labour MP Alan Simpson refusing to hand back £500 in “excessive” cleaning charges while the Mail reports that Jacqui Smith is refusing to repay a £1,500 bill which Sir Thomas Legg has demanded she hand back to taxpayers. Meanwhile, Bill Etherington MP was embarrassed on BBC Newsnight for opposing retrospective legislation of the kind that he had supported.

With the prospect of MPs refusing to pay back the money requested by Sir Thomas Legg’s enquiry, Left Foot Forward is reminded of the pioneering work of Mark Thompson in drawing a clear correlation between MPs expenses and safe seats.

Back in May, Mark Thompson, who runs the Mark Reckons blog and contributes to Left Foot Forward, showed that, “the safer the seat, the more likely the MP is to be implicated.” His graph (reproduced right) showed that 80 MPs in the safest 25 per cent of seats were implicated in the expenses scandal compared to just 46 in the least safe seats.

Today, Bill Etherington, the MP for Sunderland North, told the Sunderland Echo:

“If he [Legg] has decided I shouldn’t have claimed something which I feel was justifiable under the rules at the time, then I won’t pay it.”

Etherington, who is stepping down at the next election, claimed £22,922 in additional allowance costs including £2,490 for roller blinds, £150.99 on three sets of stepladders in three months, £74.44 for a razor, and a £119 radio. Etherington has a majority of 9,995. The Electoral Commission determined that it was the 286th most marginal of Labour’s seat, putting it safely inside the top 25 per cent of Labour’s safest seats. Boundary changes will reduce the majority to around 9,000.

Writing today for Progress, John Mann MP says:

“Many MPs continue to view themselves as badly done by, under valued and under paid. Everyone is to blame but ourselves for the expenses scandal. I beg to differ. Parliament set the rules, or rather the lack of rules, and we must dig ourselves out of this mess.”