Latest privatisation/corruption plan is halted as government reluctantly scraps Land Registry sale

Tags

bis, business, Conservative, consultation, Democrat, Department, Infrastructure Bill, innovation, land registry, Lib Dem, Liberal, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, PCS Union, petition, privatisation, privatise, Queen's speech, skills, The Guardian, Tories, Tory, Vox Political

Still in public ownership: According to reports, the sale of the Land Registry has been cancelled.

A little-known plan to sell off one of the government’s best-performing and self-financing organisations has been scrapped – not because of fears that a new system would be prone to corruption but apparently because it was “too complicated” and would have necessitated “new legislation”.

The change of heart – for whatever reason – has been taken by the PCS Union as a victory for its campaign against the sell-off, which included a two-day strike against the privatisation proposal, which members described as “secret”.

Commentators including Vox Political pointed out that the public consultation process received hardly any publicity at all and was closed before most of us even knew it had taken place.

Among the Land Registry’s many functions are quasi-judicial decisions on ownership and transfers, granting title and, crucially, guaranteeing legal rights on behalf of the state. This is not just of fundamental importance to homeowners, but an essential feature of our economy. The backbone of the system is its freedom from outside influence and commercial interest,” the article stated.

In its article on the subject earlier this month, Vox Political warned that, clearly, privatisation would put the Land Registry entirely under threat of outside influence and dominated by commercial interest.

It quoted a report in The Guardian stating: “The agency is also currently bound by government policy on procurement, designed to assist small and medium-sized businesses to compete against the oligopoly of large suppliers. But BIS [The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills] has identified this as a problem, claiming greater flexibility in the private sector to buy goods and services. In a truly astonishing move, a government agency faces being changed into a commercial company so it can avoid the very controls the government brought in to protect small businesses.”

The article also warned of “massive job losses and office closures” and said the government had “flatly refused” to publish and fully consult on these plans.

And the plot thickened considerably when it was revealed that the Infrastructure Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech would transfer responsibility for the local land charges register to the national Land Registry – away from local councils. This means it would profit from the sale of the information – while councils fear they would still have to employ staff to do the work.

All in all, the sale was shaping up into a plan to put big business – the ‘This is Money’ article suggested private equity firms and outsourcing companies – in control of a system that had been freed of any obligation towards small and medium-sized businesses, and whose work would be done by local authorities – at a cost to the council, not the Land Registry.

For any new shareholder, it would have been a licence to print money.

The PCS has already declared its delight that the sell-off has been called off. A statement released yesterday (June 29) reads: “This would be a victory for the thousands of Land Registry staff who campaigned with industry professionals against the plans, and very welcome news for millions of people who rely on it to provide a reliable, impartial and hugely important public service.

“We want the Land Registry to work with us on our proposals to strengthen the agency in future, but serious questions must be asked of senior officials and ministers who tried to push through what would have been a very damaging and totally unnecessary sell-off.”

Indeed. First among these would be: Who paid them to do it?

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first, Strong Words and Hard Times
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

Did the Tories tell anyone at all they were privatising the Land Registry?

Tags

38 degrees, bis, business, Conservative, consultation, Democrat, Department, Infrastructure Bill, innovation, land registry, Lib Dem, Liberal, PCS Union, petition, privatisation, privatise, Queen's speech, skills, The Guardian, Tories, Tory

Did you know about this?

According to a petition on the 38 Degrees website, the government closed – closed – a public consultation on proposals to privatise the 152-year-old Land Registry on March 20 this year.

“There has been no publicity or attempt to inform the public of this radical change to an organisation that is vital to the UK property market,” the text of the petition states.

While this is not strictly true, it would be accurate to say that the plan has not been well-publicised. Not at all.

The government put out a press release on January 23, saying a consultation was taking place on plans “to help Land Registry deliver more efficient and modern services”. That’s no way to announce a privatisation – and the plan to create a private company was only revealed several paragraphs into the text.

Why is this important?

Well, the Land Registry is one of the largest property databases in Europe, guaranteeing title to registered estates and interests in land, recording the ownership rights of freehold properties and leasehold properties where the lease has been granted for longer than seven years.

It is self-financing; its income generated by registration and search fees. You pay to access certain information.

Last month, 3,000 PCS Union members went on a two-day strike over the “secret” privatisation proposal. A report in The Guardian said the government had failed to explain what problem is was trying to fix, or what benefits would be gained by privatisation.

“Key among the organisation’s many functions are quasi-judicial decisions on ownership and transfers, granting title and, crucially, guaranteeing legal rights on behalf of the state. This is not just of fundamental importance to homeowners, but an essential feature of our economy. The backbone of the system is its freedom from outside influence and commercial interest,” the article stated.

Clearly, privatisation would put the Land Registry entirely under threat of outside influence and dominated by commercial interest.

Also: “The agency is also currently bound by government policy on procurement, designed to assist small and medium-sized businesses to compete against the oligopoly of large suppliers. But BIS [The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills] has identified this as a problem, claiming greater flexibility in the private sector to buy goods and services. In a truly astonishing move, a government agency faces being changed into a commercial company so it can avoid the very controls the government brought in to protect small businesses.”

The article also warned of “massive job losses and office closures” and said the government had “flatly refused” to publish and fully consult on these plans.

Prepare for a thickening of the plot: The Infrastructure Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech last week would transfer responsibility for the local land charges register to the national Land Registry – away from local councils. This means it would profit from the sale of the information – while councils fear they would still have to employ staff to do the work.

The petition states that “another consultation on giving the Land Registry wider powers in the control of data essential to the sale and purchase of property closed earlier with the majority of the public not being aware if it’s existence.”

It seems our attention is being directed away from another Tory-led plan to sell one of our best-performing and most efficient public services off to create more profit for private business – most notably big business, at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises – while forcing the public sector to do all the work for nothing.

It isn’t too late to register your disgust at this proposal. Sign the petition right now.

And for goodness’ sake, tell everyone you know.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first, Strong Words and Hard Times
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

Osborne update: Standards commissioner ignores the facts

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

Oily Osborne has slithered away from any chance of a fraud investigation by the standards commissioner, but he will have to live with the allegation for the rest of his career.

I believe I am one of many who received an email from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards yesterday, turning down the call for an inquiry into possible expenses fraud by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Those of you who received it will be familiar with the wording. For those who didn’t, the relevant parts run as follows:

“The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.   “As you know, before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.”

Mine continued: “I am afraid I am unable to say what the police meant by their comments,” referring to my complaint to the Metropolitan Police and the strange response that it was being investigated elsewhere.

My first reaction was: How much evidence does the commissioner need? If he’s a villain, he’s hardly likely to sign a confession! We know Osborne claimed against his mortgage on the property in Cheshire and we know that the mortgage was for three land titles, not one. Therefore we deduce that he claimed money for Parliamentary duties taking place on at least two pieces of land where such duties could never have taken place, and the prima facie evidence (as the police would say) suggests further investigation is required.

Do we even have proof that Osborne ever actually used the Cheshire farmhouse to carry out Parliamentary duties? Whenever I have claimed expenses for a job, I have always had to produce proof of it. How has he used that house? When did he use that house? Where is the proof? If he met constituents, my understanding is that he used the Conservative office in the same building as the local Conservative Club (which is to close through lack of funding; interesting that Osborne is making out like a bandit while his local party suffers). Could he have travelled up from London, held those meetings, and travelled back within the same day? If so, then the farmhouse and the two pieces of land are now looking increasingly like long-term investments, maintained at cost to the taxpayer, that were to be sold at a later date for huge profit (as, in fact, they were).

Second reaction was: If the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner cannot investigate an open-and-shut fraud case (which is what this is) then what is the point of the office as it currently stands? On balance, it seems likely that Members of Parliament can continue to commit abuses of public money – and trust – and get away, free as a bird, in the current system. Therefore, with this decision it seems the commissioner, who only took up the post this month, is attempting a tacit resignation from it.

Let’s have a standards watchdog that actually investigates and prevents abuses, shall we? Maybe I’ll start an e-petition.

Third reaction was: Without a full and frank investigation, Osborne will always stand accused of expenses fraud and of abusing the trust placed in him as a member of Parliament. So, in fact, the commissioner has done him a great disservice. Mud always sticks, as the old saying goes. There’s no smoke without fire.

There’s no stink without a stinker, and in this case the odour can emanate from nobody else but Osborne.

He’ll never be able to live it down. And he’ll never be able to say that nobody raised the issue, because we have.

I think I might have a bit more work to do. For Osborne himself, as Churchill once said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Osborne update – are they kicking his paddock into the long grass?

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

Is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards going to let Osborne get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits? Only you can make him think again. It seems clear that if he committed fraud he should be jailed.

Efforts to find out exactly why George Osborne was allowed to make up to £1 million by using taxpayers’ money to pay mortgage interest on three properties in Cheshire, while fraudulently claiming he needed it to pay expenses for his use of just one of them for Parliamentary duties, appear to have run into difficulty.

I received this letter from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards:

“Thank you for your letter… to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.

“I hope it will be helpful if I explain the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach of both the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House only if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.

“Your letter suggests that criminal conduct may have occurred. Any allegations of criminal behaviour would be a matter for the police, not for the Commissioner, and I note that you have reported this matter to them. Any police investigation would take precedence over the Commissioner’s inquiries.”

That’s not good enough, is it?

It makes no mention of what the commissioner is doing about the complaint and merely runs over ground that has been covered already, via email.

I decided to try again, as follows:

“Thank you for your letter… regarding my complaint.

“I notice that you do not mention anywhere in your reply whether the commissioner is going to investigate this matter or not. However you do, helpfully, state that the commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach “if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry”.

“You will know that a previous inquiry was made into the status of Mr Osborne’s former property in Cheshire after concern was raised about his claim for expenses regarding Parliamentary duties he allegedly carried out at a house there.

“This is a separate complaint.

“As you will know from my previous letter, Mr Osborne claimed expenses, not only for the house but for two other land titles which were also part of his mortgage. These pieces of land could not have anything to do with his Parliamentary business and yet his claim included them. Therefore, his claim was fraudulent – he was stating that it was for one thing – Parliamentary duties – when in fact it was for another – to pay off, at the taxpayers’ expense, a mortgage he had taken out for a considerable amount of money. We have subsequently discovered that Mr Osborne has sold all three properties for an amount that could be more than double the price he originally paid for them – up to £1 million – and kept the entire amount. I have provided ample evidence to support the above statements.

“This is a scandalous matter. A member of the Cabinet – the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less! – diverting taxpayers’ money under false pretences in order to gain a pecuniary advantage of up to £1 million. And at a time when millions of people are having to make the choice between staying warm and eating!

“It may interest you to know that many right-thinking citizens of the UK are also scandalised by this matter and wish to see it resolved and justice done. Articles I have written have attracted the support of around 5,000 readers and they all want to know what will be done about this. I appreciate that, in the context of a nation of 60 million people, 5,000 is not a great number. However you should bear in mind that I occupy only a very small corner of the UK’s media. If my platform had been more high-profile, you can be assured that many more people would be calling for justice in this matter.

“You also refer to the fact that I have reported this matter to the police. This is true. But I must inform you that I received a strange telephone call from the Metropolitan Police, stating that they could not investigate the matter directly as an investigation was already in progress, being handled by others. They declined to explain what they meant. Can you tell me what they meant? I wrote to my MP, seeking clarification, but he has not yet responded.

“Taken as a whole, and writing as a right-thinking person myself, I have to wonder whether attempts are being made to obscure this matter – cover it up, hide it away. Your letter is a case in point. Why do you not tell me outright what the commissioner has decided?

“It all seems very suspicious to me.”

Does anyone feel like supporting this complaint? Just email standardscommissioner@parliament.uk and say you are aware a complaint has been made about George Osborne’s expenses claims for the property in Cheshire he recently sold, and that you wish to know when the inquiry will be set up and how matters are progressing. If enough people shout about it, maybe they’ll shift.  

Osborne update: Information sent to Standards Commissioner

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

He thinks he can get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits. It seems clear that he committed fraud. He should be jailed.

Dear ——- —-,

Thank you for your email of December 20, and for replying to my complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP so promptly.

Herewith please find copies of Land Registry documents relating to the properties in question. These may be obtained from the Land Registry on request. It is clear from them that both properties were owned by Mr Osborne and were sold together – as a single transaction – to the new owners. Under those circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that the valuation of £445,000, which appears on both documents for the period when Mr Osborne owned those properties, relates to those properties individually; it is the value of both properties, taken together. That is how Mr Osborne bought them, and it is how he sold them. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to believe there are separate valuations for the land and the building.

It must follow, therefore, that Mr Osborne’s claim for mortgage expenses towards use of the building in the pursuance of his Parliamentary duties also went towards payment of mortgage expenses on the paddock, and I understand it is now a belief that is widely held by the public, that Mr Osborne did not spend a single penny of his own money on the mortgage for the properties in question.

There are questions that I cannot answer for you. I do not hold details of the single mortgage he held, that covered both the land west of Macclesfield Road (the paddock) and at Harrop Fold Farm – that would be a private document and its details would be a matter for him to divulge. Therefore I cannot say for certain whether he claimed for all of the mortgage interest or just a percentage covering the house. As a reasonable man, however, I can say that it seems unlikely he would put forward an arbitrary figure – and how would he know the correct valuation for the building alone, when he bought it and the paddock as a single package?

You rightly state that the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period. The only conclusion I can draw from this, in the light of the above information, is that Mr Osborne may have misled the Commissioner about the true nature of his mortgage interest payments. I would imagine this is a serious offence against the Commissioner’s office; if it is not, I am sure that the general public would be as shocked as I would.

Bear in mind also that the sum of money concerned in this affair is around £1 million. This is not a paltry amount and, if the taxpayers of the UK have been unwittingly subsidising a profit-making scheme for this man, it would be unreasonable to deny them knowledge of the matter and recompense for the misuse of their tax pounds.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response. I understand that your office would not, in any case, proceed with an investigation without a written complaint, so I will put the necessary documents in the post at my earliest convenience.

Osborne paddock update: Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Tags

2006, account, Act, Channel 4, code, commissioner, conduct, Dispatches, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, Guardian, harrop fold, house, Independent, inquiry, Interest, land registry, libel, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Mirror, mortgage, newspaper, paddock, Parliamentary, police, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Telegraph, Vox Political

Shady: Why will the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards NOT investigate the new evidence that has come to light about George Osborne’s expenses?

It seems the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is reluctant to examine the case of George Osborne, who paid mortgage interest on his paddock with taxpayers’ money before selling it off with a neighbouring farmhouse for around £1 million and pocketing the cash.

Mr Osborne, as is now well-documented, claimed mortgage interest on both properties as an allowable expense, stating that he needed the house to perform his duties as an MP. The paddock was registered separately with the Land Registry and was not mentioned in his expenses claim, but thanks to newspaper reports earlier this month, the nation understands that the money he received was used to pay for it.

Apparently this is not good enough for the Standards Commissioner. After I requested an inquiry, I received an email from Heather Wood, registrar of members’ financial interests. She wrote: “The Commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach of both the Code and the rules of the House only if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.

“Since the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period, there would need to be evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Rules of the House, other than that he had already investigated, before he could consider this matter further. That evidence would need to be sufficient to justify an inquiry.”

She went on to provide a link to the result of the previous inquiry. I read it very thoroughly but could find no mention whatsoever of the paddock at Harrop Fold Farm.

From the evidence provided by the commissioner’s office, I can only conclude that Mr Osborne did not tell the authorities that the money he claimed – in order, let’s remember, to discharge his Parliamentary responsibilities – would also partly pay for an empty field that he planned to sell for an exorbitant profit, years later.

To me, this is clearly accounting fraud, which is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

The only reason I can find for the reluctance shown by the Commissioner is that my evidence comes from newspaper reports, and the guidance on submitting complaints does make it clear that such evidence may not be enough.

However, it seems clear that there is substance behind the allegations. Firstly, the evidence was transmitted in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on TV; then the Telegraph, Guardian, Mirror and the Independent all came out with corroborating reports. They would not do this without being able to back up what they were saying; if the details were false, then they would all have been guilty of libel, which is itself an offence – and I am sure Mr Osborne would be quick to pursue them through the courts in such circumstances.

He has not done so. What does this suggest to you?

My next step will be to write to the reporters concerned. I’ll need to ask them if the evidence to support their stories is publicly available and, if so, where I can find it. Then I’ll have another crack at the Commissioner. If any of the reporters concerned are reading this, please get in touch and provide any illumination you can – I think we would all be genuinely delighted to see your contribution.

Oh – there is one last line from the registrar, as follows: “Your e-mail also suggests that criminal conduct may have occurred. Any such allegations would be a matter for the police, not for the Commissioner, and I note that you have already raised this matter with them.”

That’s right – they said they couldn’t investigate because an inquiry was already taking place, and I’m still awaiting a response from my MP on that subject. Isn’t it interesting that the responses I’m getting are starting to go around in circles?

I’ll keep you all informed of progress.

Osborne Update: Met passes the buck

Tags

cash, Chancellor, class, Conservative, Exchequer, expenses, flip, George Osborne, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, taxpayer, Vox Political

He thinks he can get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits. Only you can make him think again. It seems clear that he committed fraud. He should be jailed.

The Metropolitan Police cannot investigate George Osborne over the way he misused public funds to pay mortgage interest on a paddock in Cheshire – apparently there is a separate investigation already taking place.

A representative passed this information to me by telephone earlier today. She assured me that a file had been created and sent to the appropriate place (Westminster), but said: “There are separate ongoing issues that are being investigated, so it can’t be done by us. You would have to speak to your local MP.”

When I pressed her for the reason, she said “It is not within our jurisdiction to do this. There is a separate investigation ongoing with this.”

I haven’t got the faintest idea what she meant by this. Therefore I have emailed my MP and asked him to take up the matter. There is a problem with this, in that he is a Liberal Democrat and therefore part of the Coalition, of which George Osborne is a high-ranking member.

In my email, I urged my MP to do everything within his power to ensure that a proper police investigation does indeed take place into Mr Osborne’s wrongdoing (it isn’t alleged – the facts are known and it is therefore simply a matter of ensuring that a prosecution takes place and the criminal is imprisoned. Bear in mind that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, what he has done is a gross betrayal of public trust).

I added that he may find that other MPs have also been contacted by constituents who want to see justice served. By that, I mean anyone reading this, who has read my previous articles about this and taken action on them.

I also added that I am extremely interested to learn the nature of the “separate ongoing issues” mentioned by the officer of the Metropolitan Police, and urged him to find out what this means and let me know. And I asked, if this investigation is not within the jurisdiction of the Met, who is carrying it out?

I strongly urge you to do likewise.

Please note: I have been advised that my information is out of date as the fraud-related provisions of the Theft Act 1968 have been repealed and replaced by the Fraud Act 2006. Mr Osborne’s actions are therefore likely to be crimes under sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 2006 Act.

For those who want to contact their MP, as I have, but need to find the correct email address, here’s the appropriate web link:
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/

Police urged to investigate fraud allegations against Osborne

Tags

cash, Chancellor, class, Conservative, Exchequer, expenses, flip, George Osborne, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, taxpayer, Vox Political

It doesn’t contain the Budget; it’s probably his swag bag.

… by me.

What follows is the text of my complaint to the Metropolitan Police (via their website)  about George Osborne’s paddock scam. I have received a large volume of responses to my article about this yesterday, all but one of which agreed with my belief that what he did was a criminal offence and should be investigated with a view to prosecution and imprisonment.

I would strongly urge others to contact the Met regarding this case. I’ve done it; you can do it too. The more of us stand up and demand action, the more seriously they are likely to view this matter.

Here’s what I wrote:

It has emerged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP, has been misusing taxpayers’ money for his own enrichment and for that reason I have been urged to request a criminal investigation concerning fraud. From the evidence that is publicly available, it seems clear that this is an offence according to s.16 of the Theft Act, 1968.

We know that Mr Osborne bought a farmhouse in Cheshire, along with the neighbouring land, for £455,000 in 2000, before he became an MP in 2001. Between 2003 and 2009, he claimed up to £100,000 in expenses to cover mortgage interest payments on both the land and the building. The mortgage was interest-only. After 2003, he never paid a penny himself.

He re-mortgaged in 2005, increasing the amount to £480,000 – again on an interest-only basis – to cover the initial purchase costs and £10,000 for repairs. He was using public money to claw back his outlay on the property so, from then on, we can say that none of the money paid on that building or land was ever paid by Mr Osborne. It all came from the taxpayer.

During the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 we learned that he had “flipped” his second home allowance onto the farmhouse building and increased the mortgage. What we didn’t know was that the expenses payments were not just for the house, but for the paddock as well; it is registered separately with the Land Registry.

Mr Osborne sold the house and the land – both of which are now firmly established as having been funded with taxpayers’ money, not his own – last year, for £1 million. That’s more than double the original price. He has pocketed that money; the taxpayer won’t get any of it back.

So he has exploited taxpayers like you and me to make £1 million for himself. This was not a necessary expense to help him discharge his Parliamentary duties; it seems clear that it was a property scam.

I wish also to invite you to take action against this person for any other offences which may apply, such as false accounting (s.17, Theft Act 1968).

Obviously, since the crime relates to expenses claims, the location is wherever MPs’ expenses claims are considered. I would suggest this is the Palace of Westminster (the Houses of Parliament) but I am prepared to be corrected on this.

The victims of this crime are the taxpayers of the UK. Mr Osborne took money that was available to Parliament through taxation, therefore no single person can claim they are the victim but all taxpayers have been affected. Please be reminded that we are discussing a considerable sum of money – up to £100,000.

I refer you to the following press reports of the issue, in which it is made clear that Mr Osborne did not need this building or the adjoining land to discharge his Parliamentary duties, nor did he pay back anything like the amount he claimed, when he was found to have overclaimed for mortgage interest on the farmhouse (and only the farmhouse):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/07/taxpayers-paid-george-osborne-paddock-mortgage

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-included-a-horses-paddock-1477294

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-included-a-horses-paddock-1477294

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9729139/George-Osborne-bought-paddock-with-taxpayers-money.html

I realise this is an unusual complaint but the situation is the subject of considerable public unrest and I believe it is right to bring it to the attention of the police. There is a widespread feeling that Mr Osborne has committed a crime, that this should be investigated to the fullest extent, and that a criminal action should be brought against him. It is understood that this person holds one of the highest offices in the land but this should not place him above the criminal law.

Storm in a scrapyard over Hughes – while Osborne should be arrested

Tags

cash, Chancellor, class, Conservative, Deputy, donation, Exchequer, expenses, fare, first, flip, funded, George Osborne, land registry, Leader, Liberal Democrat, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, questions, railway, simon hughes, standard, taxpayer, train, Vox Political

Making out like a bandit: George Osborne has pocketed £1 million by using taxpayers’ money. Should he be jailed for fraud?

I can’t see any reason to make a fuss over Simon Hughes.

The Liberal Democrat deputy may have failed to declare – fully – a £10,000 donation from a scrap metal firm. Big deal. He did not see any of the money himself. Apparently there’s another donation of £15,000 from a cruise company. Hughes was the speaker at a Christmas cruise on the Thames, operated by this company, and has spoken about both firms in Parliament. It looks like straightforward ‘cash-for-questions’, if there’s truth to it.

Isn’t it more interesting that this should come to light on the same day that I read about George Osborne and his paddock?

This is not an allegation but fact: Osborne – who is, let’s remember, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore should know the rules extremely well – included the mortgage for a paddock in his taxpayer-funded expenses.

He bought a farmhouse in Cheshire, along with the neighbouring land, for £455,000 in 2000, before he became an MP – but then, between 2003 and 2009, he claimed up to £100,000 in expenses to cover mortgage interest payments on both the land and the building. The mortgages were interest-only. After 2003, he never paid a penny himself.

When he re-mortgaged in 2005, he increased the amount to £480,000 – again on an interest-only basis – to cover the intial purchase costs and £10,000 for repairs. He was using public money to claw back his outlay on the property, so from then on, none of the money paid on that building or land was paid by Mr Osborne. It all came from the taxpayer.

During the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 we learned that he had “flipped” his second home allowance onto the property and increased the mortgage. What we didn’t know was that the expenses payments were not just for the house, but for the paddock as well; it is registered separately with the Land Registry.

Osborne sold the house and the land – both of which are now firmly established as having been funded with your money, not his – last year, for £1 million. That’s more than double the original price. He has pocketed that money; the taxpayer won’t get any of it back.

So he has exploited us to make £1 million for himself.

Make no mistake – this was not a necessary expense to help him discharge his Parliamentary duties; it was a property scam.

Because the money was claimed as a Parliamentary expense, I think there are grounds for a fraud inquiry. It seems like an open-and-shut case of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (Theft Act 1968, section 16).

Let’s also remember that this is a man with what I believe is known as “form”. Earlier this year he was caught in the First Class compartment of a train, having paid only a Standard Class fare. Again, he had obtained an advantage via deception.

Did he pay any penalty for the railway incident? I’ve heard nothing. Will he pay a penalty for this £1 million wheeze? I doubt it.

But you should remember it, next time you see him telling you that his latest plan to squeeze the last vital pennies from your bank accounts are “fair”.

And you should pay particular attention to this comment from him, made when he became Chancellor (and therefore while he was still claiming the mortgage on expenses, before making the sale): “I took a pay cut, and froze my pay on taking this job, took a pay cut from the previous chancellor, the Labour chancellor, in order to show that politicians weren’t going to get away with it.”

He seems to think he can.

I find it extremely dubious that the allegations about Hughes should take pride of place on certain news media websites, while the facts about Osborne appear to be all but brushed under the carpet.

My opinion: Osborne should be arrested and remanded in custody (without bail – the risk that he might abscond would be too great) until a trial can take place.