So many thoughts on Djanoglys' expenses!

Expenses Scandal

In reply to an e-mail I sent to Djanogly about his most recent expenses I was informed by Djanogly that:

"It is not however, up to you to audit these claims. For an individual to be permitted to audit the claims of a single MP in isolation, is simply unworkable."


"However, I can confirm that all of the items that were mentioned in your letter were approved by the Parliamentary Fees Office."

What has come out of the Legg Report
Reading the report there are a few stark references to the lack of audit.

Position of the Fees Office
27. The problems about the rules are dealt with in more detail below. Alongside those problems, the authority and legitimacy of the Fees Office was much less than seems to have been realised by most MPs at the time. These officials were not Civil Servants with an independent duty to, and accountability for, the public purse. They were servants of the House and, while of course supposed to observe and apply its rules, they were also in practice expected to do so in the ways most beneficial to the MPs whom they were there to serve. The CSPL report has spoken of a ‘culture of deference’, and my own view over the years, on the Audit Committee and conducting this review, has been that this expression is justified.

So the Parliamentary Fees Office was there to serve the MPs and NOT hold them to account.

28. The Fees Office was therefore vulnerable to the influence of higher authorities in the House of Commons, from the Speaker down, and of individual MPs. In practice during most of the review period, these influences tended more towards looking after the immediate interests of MPs than to safeguarding propriety in public expenditure.

29. But the problem went deeper than that. Throughout this period, alone across the entire public service, MPs were self-certifying as to the propriety of their own expenditure. They were both entitled and personally responsible for ensuring that the moneys they drew in allowances were properly spent for the purposes voted.

31. Another consequence of the sovereignty of individual MPs over their own use of the allowances was another unique feature, which was strongly defended during most of the review period. This was that there was no audit of any kind of the individual use by MPs of the ACA or any other Parliamentary allowance. Neither internal nor external auditors could ‘go behind the Member’s signature’. This was recognised by the National Audit Office. The Clerk of the House, as Accounting Officer, made clear in his Statement of Internal Control that he could not vouch for the use of MPs’ allowances. Only last year did the House resolve to introduce a full audit system, and this is still in process of being implemented.

So what Legg found wrong is the MPs self certified their expenses claims and the Fees Office were there to pay these claims from their employers. What I understand is that MPs are collectively the employers of the Fees Office. There was no internal or external audit of MPs expenses' claims. 

snrednek says: Djanogly hides behind the Fees Office as approving his claims. It is clearly apparent the Fees Office was acting FOR MPs and not as a referee or auditor. So approval of the Fees Office is meaningless! The constituents are the only ones who can hold our MP to account as we are his employer. Until MPs can be relied upon to make proper claims it is their constituents who should audit our MPs' expenses until we can rely on their new creation IPSA. 

As I publish this piece I looked to see what Djanogly has said about his expenses on his website. I cannot find anything.

Document
Legg Report