On 8 May 2009, The Daily Telegraph began publishing a series of explosive revelations about the widespread misuse of parliamentary allowances by members of parliament, triggering a major political scandal that profoundly damaged the reputation of Westminster.

The newspaper had obtained a full, unredacted record of all MPs’ expense claims over the previous four years. Over several weeks, the Telegraph detailed how politicians from all parties had claimed public money for items ranging from the trivial to the lavish and the utterly frivolous.

The scandal had been brewing for some time.

On 31 January 2008, the Conservative MP Derek Conway was suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days and ordered to repay £13,161 for misusing his parliamentary allowances.

The sanction followed a damning report from the committee on standards and privileges, which found that Conway had paid his son, Freddie, a salary as a research assistant out of public funds, despite there being “no record” of what work, if any, he had undertaken. Freddie had taken this salary while he was a full-time student in Newcastle.

The committee concluded that Conway had committed “a serious breach of the rules”.

The Conway case is widely seen as a precursor to the wider parliamentary expenses scandal that would erupt in 2009.

The Telegraph’s daily disclosures sparked a wave of public anger, ended political careers, and prompted the first resignation of a House of Commons speaker in more than 300 years. The saga also precipitated significant public demand for wide-ranging political reforms.

Among the most damaging revelations were claims for clearing a moat, buying an ornate duck house, and “flipping” – the practice of repeatedly changing a designated second home to maximise claims on different properties. The vast majority of claims were not illegal under the existing rules, but they were regarded by the public as a misuse of taxpayers’ money during a time of economic hardship in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

***

A YouGov Poll, published June 2009, found 91% of the public were “very angry” over the scandal. 82% supported the statement that MPs who have been caught up in the scandal “should resign immediately”.

An Ipsos/Mori poll, also published June 2009, found dissatisfaction with the commons had reached 71%. 62% thought MPs put their own interests ahead of the interests of their party, constituents and country.

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, responded to the scandal on 11 May 2009 during a visit to the Royal College of Nursing conference.

He said: “Just as [nurses] have the highest standards in your profession, we must show that we have the highest standards for our profession.

“And we must show that, where mistakes have been made and errors have been discovered, where wrongs have to be righted, that that is done so immediately.

“We have also to try hard to show people and think hard about how a profession that, like yours, depends on trust – the most precious asset it has is trust – how that profession too can show that it is genuinely there to serve the public in all its future needs.”

In an article for the Guardian, published on 25 May, Conservative leader David Cameron called for a “massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power… from the state to citizens”.

The scandal even sparked calls for the queen to intervene by way of encouraging Brown to dissolve parliament and call an election.

Jacqui Smith, the then home secretary, was one of the most senior politicians implicated in the scandal. She was widely criticised after it emerged she had claimed more than £116,000 for her family home in Redditch, where she was an MP. She had nominated her sister’s property in London as her main residence.

Smith also paid back parliamentary allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, reportedly including two adult films. Reporting said the films were viewed in the family home at a time when Smith was not present.

Smith resigned as home secretary in June 2009 and lost her seat at the 2010 general election.

Clip.

The speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, was forced to resign for his perceived role in trying to block reforms and conceal the extent of the problem. In his resignation statement, Martin told MPs: “I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish office of speaker on Sunday 21 June.”

Several MPs announced they would not stand for re-election, while others were defeated upon first contact with voters in 2010.

***

Seven parliamentarians, two peers and five MPs, were sent to jail for false accounting.

In total, 390 parliamentarians were ordered to repay £1.3 million of misclaimed expenses. (This total was reduced by £185,000 after MP appeals). The order came after the publication of the Sir Thomas Legg’s review of the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA), also known as the “second homes” allowance, which was condemned as “deeply flawed” and “vague”.

The review read: “[The ACA expenses] system was deeply flawed. In particular, the rules were vague, and MPs were themselves self-certifying as to the propriety of their use of the allowance.

“Taken with the prevailing lack of transparency and the ‘culture of deference’, this meant that the Fees Office’s decisions lacked legitimacy; and many of them were in fact mistaken.”

The largest sums ordered to be repaid by sitting MPs, following appeals, were £42,458 by Barbara Follett (Labour), £36,250 by Bernard Jenkin (Conservative), £31,193 by Andrew Mackay (Conservative), £29,691 by David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative), £29,398 by John Gummer (Conservative), £29,243 by Julie Kirkbride (Conservative) and £24,878 by Liam Fox (Conservative).

In response to the crisis, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) was established under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. IPSA provided a new, independently administered system for MPs’ pay and expenses, responding to concerns of political influence.

From April to November 2009, MPs’ expenses and allowances were investigated by the committee on standards in public life (CSPL). The resultant report contained 60 recommendations which were referred to IPSA.

Notably, it recommended that all MPs representing constituencies within a “reasonable commuting distance” of Westminster should have the right to claim additional accommodation expenses removed.

Brown also initiated the creation of the reform of the House of Commons committee, which reported in November 2009. The ‘Wright committee’, so-called after its chair, Tony Wright, recommended a series of measures to overhaul the operation of the House of Commons, with a view to improving transparency, accountability and scrutiny. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government agreed to its recommendations.

***

The MPs’ expenses scandal also reignited debate over political and electoral reform. In May 2009, the health secretary, Alan Johnson, pressed Brown to revisit New Labour’s pledge to hold a referendum on electoral reform. Writing in the Times, Johnson argued that voters should be offered a choice between the “elegant” alternative vote plus (AV+) system, the centrepiece of the 1998 Jenkins commission report, and first past the post.

At the time, Johnson was seen as possible successor to Brown. The expenses scandal intensified speculation surrounding a potential Labour leadership challenge.

Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, also expressed support for renewed consideration of electoral reform. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, writing in the Guardian, called on the government to revive its commitment to a “referendum on the Jenkins [commission] proposals .”

Brown ultimately answered these calls. Ahead of the 2010 general election, the prime minister attempted to force legislation through parliament requiring a referendum on the alternative vote by October 2011. In an article for the Guardian newspaper, Brown wrote that people across “Britain are still outraged by the expenses crisis, and by what they regard as a betrayal of trust by some of their elected representatives.”

The prime minister said he was “determined to do everything I can to take on and persuade those who want to deny the people the chance to decide [on a new voting system] at a referendum, and I will build support across the commons, the Lords and the country.”

On 9 February 2010, MPs approved an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill requiring an AV referendum in the next 20 months by 365 votes to 187 – a majority of 178. A separate amendment proposing a referendum on the single transferable vote was decisively rejected, by 476 votes to 69.

Addressing the House, former Conservative leader Michael Howard referred to Brown’s “deathbed conversion to electoral reform”. The AV referendum proposal encountered significant opposition in the House of Lords, with peers threatening to block the entire bill unless the electoral reform clauses were removed. With a general election imminent, Brown had little choice but to drop the referendum provisions. 

In the end, a referendum on the alternative vote formed a central part of the coalition agreement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election.

Furthermore, the expenses scandal formed the primary motivation behind the passage of recall legislation in the Recall of MPs Act 2015. The act provided the means for constituents to recall their member of parliament and trigger a by-election in the event of wrongdoing.

The scandal is widely regarded to have left a lasting scar on British politics, severely eroding public trust in politicians.

https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1110567465313071105