³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Does this week's furore over the failing to sign off on the accounts for MPs' expenses amount to a row of beans? I can't see any great new scandal.

First of all this is an investigation into the accounts for 2009-10, the last year of the pre-IPSA era, and relates to the old system which was the source of so many abuses in the previous parliament. It does not relate to anything which has happened since.

Second, the NAO's refusal to fully approve the accounts was because they didn't meet the standards required for what is known in the trade as a "full scope audit". The problem was that:

"the House authorities were unable to provide evidence to support payments to MPs of £2.6m, including £0.8m that remains unsupported despite a major exercise to obtain evidence retrospectively and £1.8m where evidence is not available for audit because the MPs are under investigation by the police.

"In addition, the evidence supporting £11.3m of costs reimbursed to members was not sufficient for the C&AG to confirm the expenditure had been incurred for Parliamentary purposes. This is despite the evidence having been obtained in accordance with the rules governing the MPs' expenses scheme."

I've been trying to find out exactly what this rather delphic statement actually means. According to John Thurso, the Lib Dem MP who chairs the finance committee of the House of Commons Commission, the administrative arm of the Commons, it boils down to a statement that the old rules applied to expenses claims were rather looser for MPs than for civil servants, and the NAO applied those rather tighter standards for documentation to support expenses claims, and many came up wanting.

For example, MPs may have provided a mortgage statement to back up claims on a second home, but failed to submit the mortgage agreement. So not enough evidence to meet the rules, but evidence that the relevant expense had been incurred. Ho hum. We already knew that the old expenses system relied too much on MPs being "honourable members" and I don't think that the NAO figures reveal some previously undiscovered tranche of fraudulent claims.

But the timing of the report, as David Cameron toys with supporting a reform of the expenses system, and the resulting press coverage, may deter some MPs from putting their heads over the parapet. Wherever two MPs are gathered in one place, they shall moan about IPSA - but they need to beware. To be sure, the price of a latte in Portcullis House has risen. The cost of meals in the parliamentary restaurants and canteens is closer to what might be paid outside the palace of Westminster, and the subsidies are to be cut again soon. The politicians and the bag carriers are feeling the pinch a bit. But so is the rest of Austerity Britain - and parliamentarians really do have to beware of moaning about their privations. There's scant sympathy outside.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?