Â鶹Éç

So what have we learned today?

Number one: that without the Telegraph's uncensored copy of MPs' allowance claims, we'd know far, far less about how some politicians have abused the system than we do now. Take one look at the redactions in the allowance claims put online today and you'll know what I mean.

Why blank out every single detail on a train ticket that cost £8.50? What effect do MPs themselves think it'll have on curious constituents to put up for all to see a page with nothing on it but a big black box and the sum: £117? Black boxes usually contain vital information. If these do, it's only thanks to a leak to the Telegraph that we know what that information is.

We've learned that it was Ogmore MP, Huw Irranca-Davies - a junior UK Government minister - who claimed for a case of House of Commons whisky as part of his MPs expenses. The water of life was meant as a raffle prize in his constituency.

It was, he said, clearly an "error and indefensible" and he'll be paying back the £127.66 that he was paid. [I'm sorry to add to his woes but put VAT on top of that and the cheque should be made out for ... more like £150. Must be good stuff that House of Commons whisky.)

Over in Monmouthshire, David Davies MP has defended payments made to his family's business as part of his claims. Last year his expenses show that he paid nearly £2000 to a company called Burrow Heath based in Newport -- the payments were for production of newsletters and other promotional material. Burrow Heath was his Dad's haulage company which has now ceased trading.

Mr Davies is adamant that there's nothing amiss here. The work was done at short notice and at cost value, neither he or any of his family made any profit from the work. He now uses a specialist company in London for the production of such material -- one that is used by many other MPs -- and the real costs was significantly higher.

"People will question it" he said "but then people will question anything. But if I knew then what I know now ..." You just wonder whether the independent panel he intends to establish to scrutinise all of his expenses claims would have had a quiet word. I think so.

What do you make of it all? In Cardiff Bay this afternoon the upshot was this: very little, if any outrage, no sack em all from those who stopped to chat to us. They were sick of it.

There's been a sea-change: most said they'd be prepared to pay more in salaries rather see a system that encourages politicians to search for loop-holes.

More pay 'em more than hang 'em all?

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