ROCHDALE MP Paul Rowen said it was time for politicians to immediately stump up excess expenses they had claimed from Parliament.
The call came after a report this week by Sir Thomas Legg revealed 390 politicians were found to have been in breach of allowances rules and were told to pay back more than £1m.
Mr Rowen, who wasn't asked for any money to be returned, said: "I am pleased to report that Legg's inquiry has found that I have no issues.
"The expenses scandal has caused the public's faith in politics and politicians to reach an all time low.
"I hope with the conclusion of Legg's report we can put this sorry affair behind us and look forward to a more open and transparent parliament.
"However, this can only happen if all MPs and former MPs, who have been asked to pay something back as a result of the inquiry, do so swiftly."
Heywood and Middleton MP Jim Dobbin, whose constituency covers Castleton, Bamford and Norden, was also informed he had nothing to repay.
He said: "I was always confident that I would have nothing to repay. I have always tried to do the right thing, and I only claimed when it was a justified expense."
Oldham and Saddleworth MP Phil Woolas, whose constituency covers Milnrow and Newhey, was overpaid by £3,350.86 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
He was also paid for gas standing charges of £60 in January, February and March 2008, which were not debited from his account, resulting in an overpayment of £180.
The total repayment recommended of £3,530.86, was subsequently reduced on appeal by £2,644.70, leaving a balance of £886.16 be repaid
Oldham West and Royton MP Michael Meacher who had originally been billed for a total of £447.62 for mortgage interest in 2008-09, repaid a total of £1,034.
Rossendale MP Janet Anderson, who covers Whitworth, was not asked to repay any money by Sir Thomas.
Former Rochdale MP Lorna Fitzsimons was paid £2,700 in June 2007 for a suite, which exceeded the guideline price of £2,200 by £500. She was ordered to repay £500.
Sign up to the weekly
news
Most recent user comments 5 of 5
The recent pledge by Kennedy that MP’s must pay back profits from second homes only applies to gains since November 2009, [gains from massive Increases up to 2008 will be ignored.] Once again they fail to live up to expectations.
Profits from second homes need to be backdated to 1997. There was never any political will to enable the average person earning average wage to be able to afford an average house in a rising unregulated market, under a secret expenses system, where MP’s were all flipping houses, making hundreds of thousands in personal profits. Not one MP represented the average wage earner. It is typical that the plan is NOT to reclaim the profits made before 2008 – as this is when 95% of the profit would have been made. Again it appears a symbolic gesture to appease angry voters. But we will NOT be so easily conned. It is not just that they used our money to profit, and paid no tax on the gains, it is also that it created a dangerous conflict of interest that meant that voting for policies which fed the house price bubble also generated personal profits for them. MP’s should not be able to make any kind of PERSONAL profit whatsoever, with Taxpayers money.
Millions of us average hardworking people, have been forced to waste tens upon tens of thousands in rent for over 10 years, paying for someone elses debt. MP's have destroyed out chances to get a decent start in life. We own nothing. We have worked for nothing.
MP's MUST PAY ALL PERSONAL PROFITS BACK, BACKDATED TO THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TENURE
23/02/2010 at 11:23 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Over the past 10 years I've spent half of them working in London although I live in Rochdale. Like Paul Rowen I needed accomodation to enable me to work there. Unlike Mr Rowen I work for myself. I'm allowed to claim expenses via my limited company, but these expenses have to be incurred 'wholly and exclusuively' in line with my job. This phrase is the test the Inland Revenue applies to all the expenses I submit through my business. This test is also supposed to be applied to the expenses MP's submit. With that in mind come somebody please explain how a 335 pound rug is meets this criteria? While I agree that MP's should have a certain level of expenses, what I don't agree with is them using these expanses to purchase houses and all the furniture needed to fill it. So for example, if I wanted a nice TV to watch in my 'second home' because it wasn't specifically needed to enable me to do my job, I would have to pay for it myself out of my after tax income, like everybody else who is not an MP.
9/02/2010 at 10:14 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
6/02/2010 at 17:14 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
In my humble opinion this has got to be the soundbite that makes in into the All Time Hall of Fame for Brassed Knecked Spin.
But well done to Peter Devine for getting Mr Rowen to put this cracking quote On The Record.
I think it could be one that Mr Rowen may regret in the future.
5/02/2010 at 18:02 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
5/02/2010 at 17:45 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.