So, if it’s the equivalent of pie and chips at the local pub (which would probably be in the order of £20 in central London I guess) then it’s not a big deal, and I would expect your local “Man in the street” isn’t going to think it’s a big deal.

If it’s in the order of a meal at a celeb-shef’s resteraunt and around £200 then I think people will rightly question where the tax payer’s money is going.

At the end of the day, *everything* should be on the MPs tax return, and the tax man should make the decision if something attracts a personal taxation charge against it for the purposes of a) the job as an MP and b) for the job as a party worker. If something the house of commons pays for would and up attracting a personal charge as far as the IR is concerned, then the party should pay for that BiK.

Would give MPs an incentive to keep the expenses rules that the rest of us have to follow simple

i think really the only way to decide these things as an MP is to base on whether you would feel under some obligation or your constituents would feel you were under some obligation which placed the beneficees in a better position than other constituents or voters.

If political parties weren’t such big spenders, then this merry-go-round of fundraising would not be required. They seem to suffering a debilitating strain of dependency culture with billboard advertising we ignore, armies of paid advisers whom the voters distrust, and a reliance on the top people flying all around the country to make really quite ordinary speeches.

Reply: THE ANSWER IS THAT ALL DINING TO RAISE MONEY FOR A POLITICAL PARTY USING PARLIAMENTARY FACILITIES IS WRONG. IT IS ALSO WRONG IN MY VIEW THAT THE DINING FACILITIES ARE SUBSIDISED. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT PARTIES RAISE TOO MUCH MONEY - IT IS BECAUSE THEY SPEND TOO MUCH ON SPIN DOCTORS, POLLLING ETC WHEN IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THEY CUT BACK.

Against Commons rules - 4 (if party did know about the dinner), 7, 9 (as not random) and 12, 13 & 14 (but I’m not sure about these),

Illegal - none, unless additional information indicates unlawful intentions.

Your scenarios indicate that being an MP involves being set down in the centre of a minefield!

Against Commons Rules - if subsidised, 12 & 13, possibly 14. You could make a case for 8, too. Of course, the simple thing to do is to have two rates - with a full commercial rate applicable to 8,9 & 12 -14.

One has to wonder what has happened to the moralities they learned at their mothers’ knees. If you were to ask the same questions of most schoolchildren you’d probably get a very clear pattern.

However, your list does give a clear indication as to the machinery….

“Do a commercial, you’re off the artistic roll call, every word you say is suspect, you’re a corporate whore and eh, end of story.”
Bill Hicks. R.I.P.

I think rules should exist for security purposes, to maintain the decorum of the place, and to prevent private gain for the MP or his party. Any scenario where there is an implied exchange of funds between dining guess and an MP or his party is very doubtful to me. I would favour minimal rules to prevent those scenarios, with maximum discretion for the MP beyond that, as the public can always sanction rogues at the ballot box. It seems to me that political parties have the most to lose here as one bad MP will tar the whole parliamentary party. Therefore party rules (and not the criminal law or parliamentary rules) seem appropriate to prevent a party organisation offering dinners with MPs or expecting donations from his/her guests.

If the cost of the dinner is subsidised by the public purse, then clearly there are issues that any reasonable person would have to consider.

If the restaurant is required to make a commercial type return then in my view no moral dilemmas arise. The only difference would be the exclusivity of access to the particular location which has many parallels (clubs etc.)

In the event of the former 1 is clearly the easy out, but it seems pusillanimous to me. In my view raising money is an intrinsic part of being involved in modern politics. The alternative is state funding and how that differs morally from an MP using a somewhat state subsidised restaurant to meet or encourage potential donors beats me.

So for me (and I’m a PPC with a reasonable prospect of facing this dilemma) I would probably go ahead and do all of 2 -9, always assuming they aren’t specifically prohibited by the relevant regulator. It would, of course, be sensible to declare them.

Interestingly, I think 10 & 11 regarding family use are more problematic. Would many people be allowed to use their workplace to host dinners, particularly if subsidised? Probably not and even if allowed, the tax man would probably want to hear about the benefit in kind from the employer.

12 does seem a little dicey as I can’t see the MP’s role in this being in any way in the public interest but 13 & 14 seem to me like perfectly proper uses of an MPs time and resources.

The sleaze is in the subsidy, nothing else.

The use of Houses of Parliament facilities which are taxpayer subsidised should be restricted to members and employees and guests on legitimate constituency or government business. All bills must be paid by the member and the names of all guests disclosed on public record.

Any and all personal or party business functions should be banned and infringement should lead to a ban on the use of the HoP facilities.

Tough but the members have brought it on their own heads. Form now on its guilty until proven innocent.

Otherwise, simply introducing more rules and regulations encourages the search for loopholes.

And by the way, as a veteran of many HoC dinners, I’m no longer so sure of their attraction since I saw a large rat scurrying along the dado rail in Dining Room B!

A reminder that the House of Commons is supposed to be a place of work and not a “club”. If there is a need to have a restaurant for such activities this should be run as a commercial business and MPs should pay accordingly.

With a conjurer, you are directed to look at one hand while the other hand is sliding into his pocket to produce the rabbit.
Has anyone - anyone at all - noticed the tremendous scandal in the EU about MEP expenses which is currently raging? How the damning evidence is currently locked away under guard (honest). I got all this from Open Europe. It happened at exactly the same time as the scandal over Mr Conway.
Now that is a real scandal which ought to be discussed in detail!

when in doubt REPORT.

Good luck to you John. Our country needs you!

As far as I can see all examples you give should be considered sleazy. This is particularly so following the vote on Bill Cash’s New Clause 9 and the actual motion passed on the third reading of the EU (Amendment) Bill.

Prior to the ECA of 1972 certain of the activities mentioned would have been acceptable but down the years the number has been reduced.

Once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified a set salary of about twenty thousand pa per MP with no canteen nor expenses would seem to be all that can seriously be justified.

I can somewhat clear my own mind on the matter by making a comparison with the handling of the use of a company maintained furnished flat on Park Lane my ex-employer maintained for business entertainment.

We had several joint venture subsidiaries across Europe and regular board meetings would be quite properly held in the flat followed by lunch. Visiting executives on business from our parent company in the USA would use the flat as office and accomodation when travelling on business.

A lunch, dinner or accomodation provided solely for employees or their families would have been quite improper and jeopardised the tax treatment of the substantial cost of the flat.

2) Permitted, but perhaps there should be figure made public showing which MP’s spend the most time in the bars and restaurants, this way we can see which ones are there all the time but never attend debates / votes.

3) Permitted

4) Permitted

5) I can see the logic in expecting this sort of thing to be done outside of the Commons, but since so much other party-politcal activity goes on there, and it doesn’t make a difference where they go to dinner, it should probably be permitted.

6) Permitted, the alternative to this sort of thing is state funding I guess.

7) As for 6

Permitted

9) Permitted

10) Permitted

11) Permitted

12) This is tricky from the point of view of being seen to give one company preferential treatment over another. It could also be seen as greasing palms to get consultancy work. Having said that MP’s should try to encourage businesses to come to their constituencies and employ people. It is quite common for local authorities / regional development agencies to provide help to business so there is no reason why MP’s should not I guess.

13) Permitted, although this business of single-issue lobby groups touting their pseudo-science, rhetoric and dodgy statistics is one of the things that is wrong with politics. Constituents should be able to find out what lobby groups their MP provides a platform for so they can decide for themselves what they think at the ballot box. I guess the call for some kind of a register means this should come under commons rules, although I wouldn’t want responsibility for drafting them.

14) As 13 but seen as it is public sector the minutes of the meeting should be made public.

And in the future, it would help if the candidate selection process took the concept of honour into account. For instance it would seem unlikely that a candidate who had spent most of his working life immersed in the hurly burly of public relations, advertising, or politics and the attendant spinning, would have developed the requisite standard of honour.

Did I hear a buzz? Yes, I did. It’s that damned bee in my bonnet that keeps buzzing/banging on about ends and means. At some point in the last few decades, the aphorism that ‘ends don’t justify means’ has been stood on its head. This has lead to Spin, Extraordinary Rendition, Guantánamo Bay etc. These have all resulted from the modern belief that “actually, ends often do justify means” - copyright TB&AC.

Until ‘means’ get the whip hand again, society is in trouble. This won’t happen overnight, but, a good start would be for David Cameron to rid himself of the PR spivs that surround him, and operated from his heart. Incidentally, I’ve been told that it is in the right place. However, until I’m convinced he’s no longer under the influence of mendacious opportunists, it’s UKIP for me. At least they’ve got principles that extend beyond ‘follow the focus group’.

And, I’d like to add, the reason I read your blog daily is because it is so obviously ‘principled’. More power to your keyboard say I.

2. Rich local non-donor: ditto - legal but would lead to bad headlines and no subsequent red-top apology would get the same publicity as the initial allegation.

3. Rich local non-donor who pays: no different to (2) and only 3 changed words in the same newspaper article. Voters wouldn’t see a difference. Bad publicity if something the MP didn’t know later came out.

4. Rich local subsequent donor: Legal but very few would think it wasn’t planned and that the MP wasn’t really aware. Publicity swamp.

5. Rich local prompted subsequent donor: Legal but exactly as (4)

6. Dinner to past donor: Perfectly fine. Any legal problem with this (because how do you define ‘rich’) might stop my local MP buying me a pint after I paid my yearly subs.

7. Chasing up potential rich donor after dinner: Legal and also he should have chased him up before the dinner as well. The alternative is state funded parties.

8. Overpriced Raffled MP dinner at the Commons: I’ve done a few myself. Great fun to go somewhere interesting. Nothing dodgy there. Hopefully you get what you pay for and get a good dinner. Ever entered the same raffles for Lords or Ascot?

9. Meal for a local charity: The charity would have to be non-partisan to even entertain the offer so seems like a great idea to help the local Cats Home, Round Table, Lodge etc etc.

10. MP and family at HoC: Pays the bill himself? Why not?

11. MP and family at HoC: You’d have to question the motivation of someone else paying the bill. A third cousin twice removed who has an arms sales business is ‘family’? On balance, no but under HoC/HoL rules I would think this should be restricted and controlled.

12. MP and local company: If the local company might generate local sales or local jobs then the MP should host the meeting *but pay his own way to ensure that all appears in order*. The MP is helping his constituents but with not being financially obligated.

13. MP and lobby group: You don’t mention any payments. If I was a pro-hunting MP and invited foxhunters and supporting / neutral / undecided MPs to turn up for example and I paid for the drinks then I’m all for that sort of occasion. If Brown’s pet Sith Institute carries on getting cheap meeting rooms in Downing Street whilst still pretending to be a charity then I’m going to start getting grumpy.

14. MP presenting quango: Fine. Politics is always done via lobbyists. I’ve dealt with a thousand salesmen in my job - make your pitch and buy my lunch. After a steep learning curve I learned to spot who to buy from and who would deliver. I have that from running a small company of 26 people but I know you see it too which is why I really hope that you are the next Chancellor.

It’s interesting that my point-by-point comments have got longer as this post has progressed…sorry but annoyance has kicked in. My apologies for the long in-depth response.