Mike Foster lets have your comments as ussual.

How do you explain your leader claiming a victory in voting in a less than rate of inflation increase for members of parliment whilst still allowing this opportunity to literally furnish MPs nests.

We dont get a £20 food allowance per day on top of our pensions or wages. Would that we did, the pensionsers who need to have their meals provided at £5 a time locally would not have to worry about being able to afford something to eat.

So just what did these MP's, including Michael Foster vote for. This will probably help enlighten us all.

The majority of MPs voted to against accepting recommendations 1-4, 6, 7 and 13 of the the following recommendations made by the Member's Estimate Committee.

They did this by replacing the motion which read:

* This House
* welcomes the Third Report from the Members Estimate Committee: Review of Members Allowances (House of Commons Paper 578);
* endorses in particular the recognition of the need for a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances and the accompanying emphasis in the Report on improved audit;
* and is of the opinion that
* Recommendations 1-5 (audit and assurance),
* Recommendations 6 and 7 (scope of overnight expenses),
* Recommendations 9 and 10 (Communications Allowance),
* Recommendations 11 and 12 (travel),
* Recommendations 13 and 14 (overnight expenses),
* Recommendation 15 (resettlement), and
* Recommendations 16-18 (other SSRB recommendations)
* should be implemented, subject to decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with respect to their introduction and application;


with an alternative motion, which read:

* This House
* welcomes the report from the Members Estimate Committee;
* recognises the need to strengthen the system of scrutiny and is of the opinion that a rigorous internal system of audit of the Additional Costs Allowance be introduced covering 25 per cent. of hon. Members each year, and every hon. Member each Parliament;
* and is of the opinion that Recommendations 5 (staff contracts), 8 (constituency offices), 9 and 10 (communications allowance), 11 and 12 (travel), 14 (overnight expenses), 15 (resettlement), and 16, 17 and 18 (other SSRB recommendations) be approved

The rejected recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 1 was for a "robust new system of practice assurance involving regular financial health checks on records kept and processes used in Members' offices with outside professional teams covering about 25% of Members each year". This was substituted by a "rigorous internal system of audit".

Recommendation 2 would have extended "the scope of the audit engagement so that it is the same as for other public bodies."

Recommendation 3 would have reduced the receipt threshold from £25 to zero so that all claims, however small, would have had to be backed by receipts.

Recommendation 4 was for the Green Book (setting out the rules on allowances for Members) to be revised to specify more detailed rules.

Recommendation 6 was for MPs to no longer be able to claim reimbursement for furniture and household goods or for capital improvements.

Recommendation 7 was that MPs representing constituencies in outer London should be eligible to claim half of any overnight expenses allowance.

Recommendation 13 was for the Additional Costs Allowance to comprise of a £19,600 maximum budget for accommodation (excluding furniture, household goods and capital improvements) but operating on the basis of itemised reimbursement and a flat rate of £30 for daily subsistence.

It would seem that Mr Foster in arguing why he voted the way he did (couldn't accept an extra £30 a day blah blah blah) is an insult to the voters intelligence. I think that the amendments made by and voted for by these MP's shows their utter contempt for the public. It would seem that their only interest is to keep it all as secret as possible, as vague as possible, and away from independent scrutiny so that they can keep their snouts firmly ensconced in the trough as deep as possible.

I do hope Mr Foster and many others collect their P45's at the next election, assuming the EU hasn't already disbanded parliament of course.

Just goes to show why our government wont take action on other countries milking the tax payers - they are doing it themselves.
Mike Foster you are on your last representation of Worcester.

Mr Luff will have wanted to tell us all about MP`sperks.from the moment he went to Westminster as our Worcester MP.How restrained of him not to blow the whistle.

It must have been difficult to sit on all that outrage for so many years while many Tories seemed mired in allegations of sleaze during the 80`s and 90`s.

What a great shame he couldn`t prevail upon his Conservative governments to introduce a freedom of information act and blow the whistle on the people he now seems so keen to criticise so sanctamoniously.

Mr Luff will have wanted to tell us all about MP`sperks.from the moment he went to Westminster as our Worcester MP.How restrained of him not to blow the whistle.

It must have been difficult to sit on all that outrage for so many years while many Tories seemed mired in allegations of sleaze during the 80`s and 90`s.

What a great shame he couldn`t prevail upon his Conservative governments to introduce a freedom of information act and blow the whistle on the people he now seems so keen to criticise so sanctamoniously.

Yes Forthright, one cannot forget that the Tory party in the 80's and early 90's were riddled with sleaze.

Let's not forget however that the present Nu-Labour incumbents came into power claiming that they were going to be whiter than white. They have in fact proved to be the grubbiest, most deceitful and greediest bunch in living memory.

The truth of the matter remains insomuch that the opportunity existed for some changes to be made to help restore public confidence in MP's and their expenses, a lot of them however were just unwilling to take their snouts out of the trough.

As for the Freedom of Information Act, that was meant to be for the rest of us and not parliament. If I recall correctly, Mr Foster was against FOI applying to Parliament as well. Why?