Legal action to appeal a Dundee MP’s rejected expenses claim cost £740 just 3% of what Westminster’s regulatory body charged the taxpayer.
Jim McGovern’s refusal to pay for a £24 rail fare from Dundee to Glasgow, where he was attending a Labour Party event, resulted in the first tribunal of its type since reforms in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said the cost of defending the appeal brought about by the Dundee West representative was £27,000, which comes out of taxpayers’ pockets.
However, The Courier has learned costs accrued by the GMB, which represented Mr McGovern in the hearing, amounted to just £740.
A union source claimed Ipsa had “two senior counsel, one of which was a silk (QC), two senior solicitors and a massive array of hangers on” at the tribunal.
The source added: “This genuinely was a serious, serious waste of taxpayers’ money.”
That claim was rejected by an Ipsa spokesman, who said it was represented by a barrister and a lawyer who both received “some administrative support”.
Maria Ludkin, GMB national officer for legal and corporate affairs, said Mr McGovern would have won his appeal if new rules about staggered journeys had been taken into account another claim rejected by Ipsa last night.
The Labour politician’s claim for a £23.90 train ticket from Dundee to Glasgow was rejected but his £249.45 business class flight on to Heathrow to fulfil his parliamentary role was allowed after a review by Ipsa’s compliance officer.
Ms Ludkin said: “Jim McGovern MP was refused a refund of a legitimate travel expense because Ipsa made an entirely unreasonable decision that he should have travelled back north to his constituency before restarting en route to London for parliamentary duties.
“We agreed with our member that this decision seemed absurd and supported his appeal against the decision.
“Jim McGovern MP’s case was acknowledged by the tribunal as ‘respectable and arguable’. The scheme rules for MPs’ expenses were changed the day before the hearing.
“Ipsa admitted that if Mr McGovern’s claim had been made under these new rules, then the claim would have been payable.
“GMB incurred limited costs in supporting their member, but have no control over the level of legal costs incurred by Ipsa.
“We are shocked by the reports that Ipsa’s costs were in the region of £27,000, when the case involved just a two-hour hearing, and when all the limited facts were agreed, and no witnesses were called. If true, this seems to be a totally disproportionate waste of taxpayers’ money.”
An Ipsa spokesman said the decision to defend itself against Mr McGovern in the tribunal was taken to ensure the new rules were taken seriously and MPs did not abuse the system.
He said: “We were taken to tribunal by Mr McGovern. It was pretty clear there was going to be a legal bill because of that. One way to have avoided legal costs would have been to avoid going to tribunal.
“We were keen to avoid going but if we turn down a claim and every time it goes to appeal we just say ‘well then’ there is no point in having these new rules.
“Either you choose to just back down or you say: We have these rules and it is important that we stick to them. Ultimately, the tribunal found we had applied the rules appropriately.”
He added: “The rule change applied to the Glasgow to London trip, not the Dundee to Glasgow journey. Months ago we wouldn’t have paid it (the rail fare) and we wouldn’t pay it now.”