Dirty Pols use Parliamentary Privilege to Beat Prosecution in Expenses Scandal.

[David Guyatt]

The brand spanking new "watchdog" covering expenses for the MP's (Members of the House of Parasites) has already had its power curtailed.

Can't have Parasites not sucking on the taxpayer's tit can we.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...t-war.html

MPs’ expenses: Ipsa and Commons at war
MPs have ordered the watchdog responsible for House of Commons allowances to relax the tough new regime created following the expenses scandal.

MPs spent five times longer discussing their expenses than the last Afghanistan debate Photo: PAUL GROVER
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent 6:14AM GMT 03 Dec 2010

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was warned that MPs would take action unless a “simpler” and “fairer” system was introduced by next April.
The often testy relationship between the two sides reached a new low as MPs interrupted the busy Parliamentary calendar to hold a five-hour debate on their own allowances.
It culminated with the unanimous passing of a motion which demanded that Ipsa introduce a "simpler" system itself, or face action.
The packed session lasted five times longer than the most recent debate on the conflict in Afghanistan, with MPs abandoning their usual custom of quitting Westminster early on Thursday afternoons to attend to constituency duties.
At the height of their heated discussion, the head of Ipsa issued a statement rejecting allegations by a senior Labour MP who accused the watchdog’s staff of leaking “juicy” information to the Press.
She also disclosed that she had wanted to punch a constituent who had accused her of being a “thief” at the time of the expenses scandal.
Ipsa has replaced the now-discredited House of Commons fees office, which failed to prevent the widespread abuse of the system of Parliamentary allowances.
Since its introduction in May, many MPs have complained bitterly at having to abide by its tough new strictures – which were approved by the Commons following the expenses scandal.
During the debate, MPs singled out individual members of Ipsa’s staff for criticism, accusing them of fostering suspicion and leaking stories to the Press. Other officials were described as “remote” and “obstinate”.
There were claims that MPs had been reduced to tears at being forced to abide by the rules.
Labour's Tom Harris said that MPs would not be "bullied by that kind of unacceptable and disgraceful behaviour".
While the debate was still ongoing, Sir Ian Kennedy, the head of Ipsa, issued a statement rejecting as “categorically untrue” allegations by Ann Clwyd, a former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, that the watchdog had leaked stories to the Press.
Saying that details of expenses claims had been released only following a freedom of information request, he added: "I regret deeply, as will many, such attempts to undermine the professional integrity of members of my organisation."
Miss Clwyd also complained that MPs’ reputations had been “smeared” by the expenses scandal.
She said: "During my election campaign, someone came up to me and shouted 'Thief!' and if I had been a man I would have run after him and punched him in the face.”
Roger Gale, Conservative MP for North Thanet, said that there was a “climate of mistrust within Ipsa” which he claimed had been: “inculcated in to them, imposed upon them from the top ...
“Let's now call a spade a spade and understand what we are talking about."
The debate came as the first tranche of expenses claimed since the election was released by Ipsa.
There was criticism, however, after Ipsa failed to produce receipts submitted to justify the MPs’ claims – during the expenses scandal it was these receipts which led to the discovery of some of the worst abuses, including potential criminal wrongdoing.
The watchdog said it was a waste of public money to produce the receipts.
But Adam Afriyie, a Conservative MP who introduced the motion, described the decision not to publish the receipts as “calamitous”.
"I believe that this decision will prove to be calamitous; it implies secrecy and concealment when MPs could have nothing to hide and it encourages misinterpretation and miscommunication unnecessarily," he said.
During the debate, David Winnick, a long-standing Labour MP, said: "If they continue in their present way, remain so obstinate, remain so remote, then I am afraid the time may well come in this Parliament that Members will have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that new arrangements should be made."
Fellow Labour MP Clive Efford added: “I have spoken to Members of Parliament who have been in tears about the financial situation that they have been put in by Ipsa, who are not here speaking today."

Tears. Bless. Perhaps they could no longer afford daily din-dins at Michelin stared restaurants, or had to clean their own moats or service the mortgage on their ever changing "flipped" housing portfolios - or simply being no longer able to charge £16k a year for servicing a mortgage that had been fully paid off?

My heart goes out to these weasels of wonga.