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!