ChatterBank9 mins ago
Another 'cover-up'?
Strange how someone can answer questions to claim over £100,00 expenses - but is then considered to be 'unfit to plea' when required to answer allegations.
http://uk.news.yahoo....harges-114112897.html
http://uk.news.yahoo....harges-114112897.html
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"...can answer questions to claim over £100,000 expenses[i"
I thought part of the expenses (more accurately allowances) scandal was that there was very little questioning of submitted claims in accordance with the governing principles of the Green Book supplied to every MP.
"In July 1995, the House agreed to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament which includes a number of general principles of personal conduct. These are based on concepts of [i]selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership].
The broad principles set out below are derived from the Code of Conduct and underpin the allowance regime. When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles. The principles include:
[i]● Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
● Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
● Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.[i]
The following questions are designed to assist Members in coming to a decision about whether or not costs incurred are appropriate to be met from the allowances:
[i]● Is this expense genuinely incurred by me in my role as a Member of Parliament as opposed to my personal capacity?
● Is this purchase supporting me in carrying out my parliamentary duties?
● Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members?[i]"
http://www1.sky.com/news/GreenBook.pdf
I thought part of the expenses (more accurately allowances) scandal was that there was very little questioning of submitted claims in accordance with the governing principles of the Green Book supplied to every MP.
"In July 1995, the House agreed to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament which includes a number of general principles of personal conduct. These are based on concepts of [i]selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership].
The broad principles set out below are derived from the Code of Conduct and underpin the allowance regime. When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles. The principles include:
[i]● Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
● Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
● Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.[i]
The following questions are designed to assist Members in coming to a decision about whether or not costs incurred are appropriate to be met from the allowances:
[i]● Is this expense genuinely incurred by me in my role as a Member of Parliament as opposed to my personal capacity?
● Is this purchase supporting me in carrying out my parliamentary duties?
● Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members?[i]"
http://www1.sky.com/news/GreenBook.pdf
1 to 5 of 5
