To think that Maria Miller should be treated in the same way as benefit fraudsters?

[zirca]

If you have over claimed on your benefits, I understand you have a short time frame to pay the money back in full, or they either take it out of your future benefits until it is paid, or get a court order to get it back through other means. Now surely, she should be treated in the same way? It is still stealing from the government!

Zirca
"But Plumprof, it doesn't matter for people who have claimed the wrong benefits, if they would have been equal to others they should have had"

Very fair point, but actually the Standards committee decided that nominating London as the second home was (just) within the guidance at the time. The Independent Commissioner saw the judgment as "finely balanced".

The main problem was the rules at the time - MPs were given a nod and a wink that it was really part of their salary and could put down any old thing to get the £22k pa. This was disgraceful and no way to conduct a Parliament, and has now been changed.

trenchcoat Yes, MM remortgaged: she bought the house in 1996 for about £230k as a wreck and did it up, increasing her mortgage in doing so to £500k. Her mortgage was £500k when she entered parliament in 2003, when the house was worth about £700k. The rules talked about not extending a mortgage whilst an Mp without talking it over. The Standards Committee held that did not to apply to a mortgage that pre-existed becoming an MP - any other interpretation of the rule would have meant someone in MM's position entering parliament would have to have to upheavel of selling one house worth £700k to buy another down the road costing £500k just to claim the same allowances.

Later, in 2008, MM extended her mortgage again to £550k. This was the bit where she got into trouble and had to make a repayment. She was less than white here as she should at least have discussed it. In mitigation is only the fact that as she thought her eligible mortgage payments hit the cap (of £22k), which they didn't quite, she didn't bother to add in other expenses she could have claimed legitimately eg cleaning, car parking, council tax that she could have done which, together with the correct amount of mortgage payment would ahve brought her over the cap again. This, and being obstructive (no excuses for that!) are why she apologised and repaid the £5k.

Anyway, I don't think she is a fraudster or a sleazebag. I imagine she works pretty hard serving us as an MP, earning the correct amount of money and expenses but was sloppy in her admin and co-operation for which she has now apologised.

I still contend that the press are hounding her over Leveson more than the expenses and that they are not reporting this fairly. The Press should not be allowed to bully the elected representatives in a free democracy.

PS I also agree with Expat

YANBU. Regardless of the technical details, any other benefit claimant who either fraudulently or mistakenly claimed for money they were not entitled to would face a fine or even jail.

Expat's suggestion of privatising the MPs Expenses department with a cuts target is genius. I believe ATOS may have some availability at the moment. And obviously sanctions should apply whenever an error is made- the prospect of being unable to claim any expenses for 6 months might help the MPs to focus on getting their claim correct the first time. And obviously the employees of the expenses department will have sanctions targets to meet as well.

Truffle oil the rental was greater - well over the allowances cap.

But PlumProf, anybody else who is mistaken about exactly what they can claim for, regardless of whether they thought they were in the right, gets sanctioned and faces losing benefits for several months . Why do MPs get away with being sloppy with their admin and co-operation, yet families already on the breadline who are 'sloppy with their admin' lose all their income under policies created by Miller's own government colleagues?

plumprof are you an MP??!!
You are very much a lone voice in this issue!

expatinscotland: No more second homes allowance. Convert some of the property the government holds into apartments. They can live in those when at work. It's a part-time job

^ This

I do realise I am a lone voice. No, not an MP but yes a commercial lawyer. I felt the same as you all did on first hearing of the story (noses in the trough etc) until I read the Report and completely changed my mind. Honestly, it is worth doing. Here is a link that I hope works:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstandards/1179/117902.htm

If you still feel the same afterwards then come back and say!

I feel sorry for MM as she really didn't do anything wrong and is now a number 1 hate figure. I worry that it is partly because she is a woman (have no particular reason to say that though but would hate to lose a woman from the Cabinet). She has not dealt with it well at all, admittedly, and needs to reflect on that but she does not deserve this lynching.

I would also feel sorry for someone on benefits who got the admin wrong, got precisely the money they were due but under the wrong "heading" and then had action taken against them. I doubt that ever happens (?hope not anyway - I would hope they get a slap on the wrist like MM).

Either she is fraudulent and dishonest, incompetent or just careless ( or entitled ). Whichever it is, she should not be in a position of power.

People who make a mistake on benefits get more than a slap on the wrist plumpprof

They get sanctioned at severe hardship and pilloried as a group.

By Maria Miller's government.

By DWP Secretary Ian Duncan-Smith, in fact, who stood up for her on Sunday.

Miller might not have done anything wrong according to the rules.

But in the spirit of togetherness I'd like to see her share the experience of hundreds, if not thousands of people.

It might make an interesting reality TV show for the Culture Secretary.

Of course YANBU they will never do that though as they are all at it in one way or another.

This government are very quick to point the finger and demonise the "scrounger" with the extra bedroom they might not need. Not as quick to point the fingers at themselves claiming thousands of pounds for whole extra houses they might not need.

You feel sorry for a person who bilked the government, no matter how much of a mistake.

For real?

Jesus wept!

Maybe she just about stayed within the rules technically speaking. But in my eyes that makes her just like the rest, so she's damned with faint praise.

As a previous poster mentioned she is in a very privileged position, in the benefits system there is no leeway for even the poorest members of society making mistakes.

if i claim income support and im supposed to be claiming JSA i will be expected to pay back the income support and not be able to retroactively claim JSA so saying she claimed for the wrong house by mistake is a crock she is on a large income i think personally they should not get two houses they should get apartments in the city for when they are working and there houses in the town they represent the apartment should be free (owned by the government so no rent to pay long term advantage) they should still pay for their own decorating food gas electricity etc (it is not that expensive if people with state pensions are supposed to afford it so can they)

pay for there own car or be given a bus pass again if its okay for a pensioner they can manage too

meals on wheels would be a great idea for them but we don't have the funding

ditto medical

they should be made to go in everyday parliament is in session

and stay awake

they should be served school meals if its okay for our children the future of our country its okay for them

she should pay back all the money she misclaimed

they should call an election early i wish to vote

im sorry never makes it better its a lie we tell our children to teach them manners

unprompted apologies make me nervous she has obviously had this lesson drilled into her and is well practiced in "heartfelt" apologies

i dont trust the government as far as i could sling a piano

Have you signed the petition? It's on change.org there's also a link to it on mumsnet politics forum. She should resign.

Yadnbu

PlumProf the press are going for her because her aide phoned up the Telegraph and threatened them with the might of Leveson if they didn't shut up about Miller.

We cannot, cannot have the Culture Secretary FFS threatening to gag the press. This is not China.

That is so far over the line that she deserves to go just for that.

This is not a 'lynching' or a witch-hunt as I heard it described today. The press are, quite rightly, desperately concerned at the chilling effect that Leveson is already having so are reporting this as robustly as the law allows. And rightly so.

You say that the press should not be allowed to bully elected representatives in a free democracy but it's alright for the office of an elected representative to try to bully a journalist into submission? The latter is much more dangerous AFAIC.

Disgusting, thieving hypocrite, who used every trick in the book to fleece the public and then try to avoid discovery. Not the least of which was threatening the Telegraph for daring to report it.

Next time the Tories have a go at 'benefit scroungers' I hope everyone will remember Miller. And the rest of the thieving hounds.

She just about hits rock bottom even for a politician. Apparently there is a Panorama programme on Thursday about benefit caps and people suffering hardship. I thought she'd be out by tonight. But there she is still clinging on. Tomorrow surely.

Why hasn't she gone already? Grimly corrupt government to blame.

ProfPlum see here I wouldn't take the MPs' account of the Miller affair as gospel. It differs from the actual parliamentary standards watchdog's ruling by a sum of roughly £45k. The discrepancy is apparently because Miller provided 'more evidence' to her fellow MPs.

And I heard tonight she hired a team of expensive lawyers to speak for her. Nice if you can afford it. No. She is a greedy selfish entitled bully.

My DH is in a senior position with his work and travels a lot
He could claim whatever he wanted but wouldn't dream of it - he sticks to the rule that he only claims what he would personally be prepared to pay for himself.
He had colleagues who order fancy champagnes and similar types of things in very expensive hotels because they can
My DH refuses any gifts and those he can't refuse he gives to the company social club. Also, he refuses to take advantage of some of the free perks (amazing sports tickets etc) that the top management quietly have access to.
Technically he could do all these things but I am extremely proud of him that he has the morals not to.
Unfortunately, there are way too many politicians that are in it for themselves. Expenses are not meant to be a way of making money.

She has now resigned. About time too. However, Cameron has already said he wants her back before long. So not only is she not being prosecuted like a benefit fraudster. She is being given the green light to claim again. Unbelievable. Hope this has lost them a lot of votes.

The discrepancy is apparently because Miller provided 'more evidence' to her fellow MPs

That is wrong. The discrepancy is down to a disagreement between the Commissioner and the Committee about interpretation of the rules. The Commissioner places great store in the placing of a comma and believes Miller could only claim based on the original mortgage she took out. The Committee (which includes an MP who was involved in framing the rules at the time) disagreed and was of the view that she could claim on the mortgage as it stood at the time she entered Parliament. This is explained fully in the Committee's report (and by the way, the Committee isn't just MPs - it includes a number of lay members).

She is being given the green light to claim again

Where on earth do you get that from? You are aware that this case relates to the old expenses system, not the current one which is much tighter and is administered by an independent body?

And if she wasn't up to anything, why the attempt to stifle the enquiry - she could have been completely open, provided details of where she had been for the purposes of her 2nd home election, and give details of her previous au pairs who could back it up. It was extremely convenient that none of them could be traced.