MEP alleged expenses fraud

Anthony Butcher · 25-10-2005, 01:49 PM

I do have a couple of questions though. If there was nothing funny going on, why has he repaid the money? Why has it taken the Telegraph to force UKIP MEPs to change their financial handling? What was the other £30,000 to be used for? What was wrong with the paper's numbers?

Percentage · 25-10-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

I do have a couple of questions though. If there was nothing funny going on, why has he repaid the money? Why has it taken the Telegraph to force UKIP MEPs to change their financial handling? What was the other £30,000 to be used for? What was wrong with the paper's numbers?

Good questions!

UKIP MAN · 25-10-2005, 03:12 PM

it could have been paid to me, for me to continue my campaigns....

Nigel Garage · 25-10-2005, 03:12 PM

Official UKIP response:

Quote:

The figures quoted were wrong and the impression was given that Mr Wise was personally benefiting from these allowances. This is wholly false and impugns his integrity.

How were the figures wrong? Did they overestimate or underestimate?

Wise admitted the money was still in his bank account, so he was personally benefitting, even if only from the interest.

Quote:

It is normal practice for MEP's secretarial allowances to be paid to a single person who acts as a paying agent to the contracted staff. Indeed, Mr Wise performed this function as office manager for Jeffrey Titford MEP in the 1999 - 2004 parliament. After his election in June 2004, and in the absence of any clear written rules, Mr Wise continued to act as paying agent, this time on behalf of his own staff.

Of course this doesn't answer the question of why he kept most of the money for himself and didn't tell Lindsay.

Quote:

However, as recent rule changes discourage MEP's from performing this function, and after a meeting with the finance secretariat, Mr Wise has repaid all unspent balances to the Parliament.

But it's still permissable, so there was no need to pay it back to the EU. Why didn't he pay it to Lindsay, if he says he was going to anyway?

UKIP MAN · 25-10-2005, 03:44 PM

AB :Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:30 pm

Quote:

However, as recent rule changes discourage MEP's from performing this function, and after a meeting with the finance secretariat, Mr Wise has repaid all unspent balances to the Parliament.

UKIP.org Tue Oct 25, 2005 15:42 pm

Quote:

Also, while it is normal procedure to repay any unspent balances at the year end in December, after a meeting with the finance secretariat, Mr Wise is now repaying all unspent balances to the Parliament in advance of that date.

slight difference has it been changed?

Anthony Butcher · 25-10-2005, 03:56 PM

The second version makes a lot more sense, but still begs the question of why he is paying the money back if what he has done is "normal procedure".

mkpdavies · 25-10-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

However, as recent rule changes discourage MEP's from performing this function, and after a meeting with the finance secretariat, Mr Wise has repaid all unspent balances to the Parliament.

This bit suggests that they were playing by the rules, have got caught out (IE made a blunder or worse) by the new rules.

Quote:

and in the absence of any clear written rules,

So were there some written rules or not? If not, then they have their get out escape.

I am more concerned that he hasn't been profiting personaly from this all. He has denied that part totally, so until someone proves otherwise, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Anthony Butcher · 25-10-2005, 04:03 PM

Version 2:

Quote:

On Sunday 23rd October 2005, the Sunday Telegraph published an article about Tom Wise MEP and his use of the European Parliament's Secretarial Allowance.

The figures quoted were wrong and the impression was given that Mr Wise was personally benefiting from these allowances. This is wholly false and impugns his integrity.

Mr Wise fully accepts the simple principle that all UKIP MEPs must be above suspicion and regrets any confusion that the article has caused.

It is normal practice for MEP's secretarial allowances to be paid to a single person who acts as a paying agent to the contracted staff. Indeed, Mr Wise performed this function as office manager for Jeffrey Titford MEP in the 1999-2004 parliament. After his election in June 2004, and in the absence of any clear written rules, Mr Wise continued to act as paying agent, this time on behalf of his own staff.

UKIP cannot state strongly enough that at no time since his election has Mr Wise attempted to seek personal gain as a paying agent.

However, as recent rule changes discourage MEPs from performing this function, Tom will not act as paying agent again.

Also, while it is normal procedure to repay any unspent balances at the year end in December, after a meeting with the finance secretariat, Mr Wise is now repaying all unspent balances to the Parliament in advance of that date.

Signed

Nigel Farage
Leader UKIP Group in the European Parliament

Roger Knapman
UKIP Party Leader

Clippo · 25-10-2005, 04:30 PM

Any other, preferably non UKIP, MEPs got their necks hanging out over these rules, written or otherwise?

Buffin · 25-10-2005, 08:07 PM

Anthony's questions still seem valid.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

25-10-2005, 01:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	I do have a couple of questions though. If there was nothing funny going on, why has he repaid the money? Why has it taken the Telegraph to force UKIP MEPs to change their financial handling? What was the other £30,000 to be used for? What was wrong with the paper's numbers?

25-10-2005, 03:12 PM	#23 (permalink)
UKIP MAN Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,898	it could have been paid to me, for me to continue my campaigns....

25-10-2005, 03:56 PM	#26 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,208 Party: None	The second version makes a lot more sense, but still begs the question of why he is paying the money back if what he has done is "normal procedure".

25-10-2005, 04:30 PM	#29 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,273	Any other, preferably non UKIP, MEPs got their necks hanging out over these rules, written or otherwise?

25-10-2005, 08:07 PM	#30 (permalink)
Buffin Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Herts. Posts: 27	Anthony's questions still seem valid.