MPs can claim £23,083 to cover the cost of having two homes - one in their constituency and one in Westminster. The Information Commissioner says they must now say how much of that is spent on different items such as cleaners, mortgage payments and burglar alarms. The Commons authorities has said it is considering appealing against the ruling on privacy grounds. They have refused several Freedom of Information requests for the details, on the grounds that they were about MPs' personal residences and there could be a security risk. The commissioner dismissed this argument, saying MPs' home addresses were often inAt the moment the system allows MPs to claim ANY expense related to the running of the second home. It might be mortgage interest, but they can also claim back running costs too. This is where it gets tricky. If you buy a new microwave for your second home, should you really be able to claim that back from the taxpayer? And if you do, why shouldn't the taxpayer know you have done just that? More from BBC Online...
the public domain anyway.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas ordered that total amounts spent on
mortgages, hotel expenses, food, service charges, utilities, telecoms bills, furnishings, service charges, cleaning, insurance and security should be revealed. But he ruled out a fully itemised list on privacy grounds - there has been reported speculation in the Sunday Times that plasma screen televisions, iPods and a fish tank had been bought on expenses. A spokesman for the commissioner said: "The decision strikes the right balance between transparency and accountability for public expenditure and the private lives of MPs and their families. "The commissioner ruled that, as expenses are claimed directly by MPs in relation to their public duties, the public has a right to know the total amounts claimed under these specific headings."
Of course there is an argument that this allowance should be restricted to claiming back rent, Mortgage Interest and Council Tax. Furnishing and running costs should be met by the MPs themselves. After all, it is they who will make the capital gain if the property is subsequently sold.
Having said that, I can see a real argument for increasing the salary of MPs, which have fallen dramatically behind equivalent professions (if being an MP can be said to be a profession!) in recent times. We get the politicians we deserve and people should not be put off standing because of the salary.
*Now, can I make a plea. In the comments can we stick to the debate around the incidental expenses and salaries, and not fall into the usual media trap of saying that MPs get a package of £180,000. They don't. Their salaries are around £59,000 and the rest is for office expenses (staff salaries, computers etc) and running a second home.
The simplest way of dealing with this would be to allow all reasonable expenditure supported by invoices/receipts. This is what every other major organisation does
ReplyDeleteWhen a company transfers an executive there are rules governing reimbursed expenses which used to be based for tax purposes on Civil Service rules.
ReplyDeleteCertain categories can be reimbursed before the moving allowance becomes taxed as a benefit-in-kind or simply as taxable income.
Now I never recall buying appliances being tax-allowable, and there were matters of receipts to be submitted.
I had the impression the Inland Revenue operated within the law and that the law was arrived a in Parliament. It seemed strange that MPs should have exemption from Income Tax legislation when handling their own affairs. I realise that they are indeed gentlemen and we are merely players but I do think there should be some parity between MPs and taxpayers and that they should not be building property portfolios from expense accounts for what many treat as a part-time job.
Would Oliver Letwin really commute from Dorset to Rothschilds if he was not an MP ? Would those barristers who spent mornings in court really not have a London home but for Parliament ?
If you really beleive MPs have had a rough deal on pay then take a look at pensioners!
ReplyDeleteCut the number of MPs by having only 1 per 250,000 registered voters. We have far too many of them and our total establishment of the 2 houses compares very badly with the vastly more populous United States.
ReplyDeleteThat might also mean that we get a better class of MP. Many of the present House are incredibly poor value for money - in all parties. Some attend only about 25% of debates, Ministers and Shadow Ministers much fewer. Many only attend after a "good lunch" on Wednesdays to jeer and make catcalls. Others are only party placemen, with no talent or individual ideas.
Having made that rationalisation we can indeed afford to pay more - and demand better performance.
Sorry Iain if I dash your ideals.
Victor
What exactly are "equivalent professions" to MPs?
ReplyDeleteIf a salary of £59,000 a year makes lawyers think again about becoming MPs, it sounds like a good idea. I can think of plenty of professions where average salaries would be below that level, yet people from such backgrounds would be considerably more valuable in parliament than the current shower.
If you're in politics for the money alone, is that really a healthy situation?
Congratulations for having the courage to raise this issue.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the Information Commissioner, the generality of his decision is wrong in principle. There is a legitimate public interest in some of the details that he has concluded should remain private being subject to full disclosure.
One would not include amongst these items an MP’s telephone or gas bills, nor is there any legitimate interest in the furnishings he or she may have or what steps to insure and secure the premises may have been taken or what his arrangements are with Mrs. Mopp the cleaning lady, though Iain is right to raise the question of how far equipping an MP’s London home should be borne by the Taxpayer.
There is, however, a legitimate and overriding interest in the nature of the ownership of any house or flat in respect of which the additional cost allowance is being made. In addition there is also a legitimate interest in who the Mortgagor of any property is.
Suppose, for example, the MP is claiming mortgage expenses when the house or flat is not in his or her name? Or the house or flat is jointly owned with another person, in particular a member of his immediate family? There is a legitimate interest in examining this information so that the MP can demonstrate that the allowance is being made for the purpose for which it is intended, namely reimbursing a payment he would not need to make unless he was an MP, rather than simply enriching his family’s coffers.
Alternatively, suppose that the mortgagor of a house he or she is ostensibly buying is a company of which the MP is a major shareholder. Then it would be legitimate to have this information so that the electorate can see that the whole transaction is open and above board and that the Taxpayer is getting genuine value for money. Similarly if the MP was the shareholder of a company owning a block of flats, one of which was leased by the MP, there is a legitimate public interest in having full details of this so that a check may be kept on whether the rental claimed represents a genuine a transaction rather than one which was deliberately inflated so as to cause an unjust financial benefit to the MP.
One can also raise a quibble concerning allowances made for food. On what possible basis can a claim for food be made? MPs have to eat, come what may and is not forced to eat extra because he is away from home. We ought to have full details of why he needs to be recompensed for food.
For complete transparency details of mortgage and rental payments ought to be placed Online, together with all other expenses claims, so that an MPs claims for expenses can be seen to be entirely above board. Appropriate redactions can be made to protect sensitive details such as those of bank account details, of course, but there is, we feel, no reason why most of this information should not be in the public domain.
The bad, but utterly predictable news is that The House of Commons is almost certain to appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling.
When passing laws for ID cards or new powers of ‘stop & search’, MPs are the first to say “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”. Well then, MPs surely have nothing to worry about in being open and above board about their expenses, do they? So, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.
Instead they seem determined to resist at every turn the reasonable and legitimate desire of the Taxpayer to ensure that their money is being properly spent. Even if all is above board, they seem quite bent on raising the strong suspicion that some of them, at least, do have something to hide.
Those who wish to see Online Registers of Expenses for MPs and Peers in the same way as the Scottish Parliament should visit http://www.freewebs.com/mpsexpensesregisterbill/
for links to a No 10 ePetition
Salaries falling behind? ROTFL! Just try telling a Nurse that. (S)he isn't on HALF that sum!
ReplyDeleteOf course MP's expenses should be transparent and, as Observer said, they should also be subject to the taxation rules and regulations applied to the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThe "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" criteria enforced with rigour by HMCE regarding the allowability of expenses should also be applied to MPs. Anyone in the real world who has accommodation provided by an employer will be taxed on a significant benefit in kind.
The rationale for why, for example, an MP in Dagenham should be entitled to a fully expensed second home in London eludes me. I daresay the beneficiary of the public funds will argue convenience, blah blah, late nights blah blah to support his position.
Similarly the recent story of an MP buying a quad bike on expenses shows how some people will abuse their position.
MPs have already voted themselves pension provisions that most people can only dream about. They have forgotten that their purpose is to serve the people, not get rich at our expense. Full disclosure of their expenses may just help to curb their excesses.
MPs should be forced to live on the median salary. That way they would be able to see what it's actually like to be one of their constituents.
ReplyDeleteIf their housing allowance is roughly the same as what many people's total income is, how can they be switched on to local needs?
Politics is not a career - entering parliament is supposed to be a way of improving the lives of your constituents, not a way of improving your bank balance.
I cant understand why you are so timid about this . Of course they should without question. what are they trying to hide. When I claim expenses I have to have a VAT receipt for everything It is fully examined by my employer, as we employ the MPs it should be available for us all to see. Just who do these people think they are.
ReplyDeleteTo wonder people are sick of our MPs.
If they get us out of the EU and actually have to do something again, double their salaries and expenses immediately.
ReplyDeleteTo get us out, all MPs of all parties should back Lord Pearson's Bill which is requesting a cost/benefit ananlysis of Britain's EU membership...and David Cameron's policy of ensuring there is a referendum before there is any transfer of any powers to the quango quagmire of Brussels.
Respect for our MPs would be at an all time high, if they take control of this EU game. It's gone on too long and it's time it was stopped.
Perhaps, MPs should get the same amounts as those on State benefits?
ReplyDeleteThe crucial reason for this transparency is NOT to learn precisely how much Nobert Gobbit MP spent on carpet-cleaning in his second home.
ReplyDeleteThe principal abuse of these funds is that certain MPs who really live in London but have a cheap (long-paid for) second home in the constituency claim the full 23 grand even though there is nothing left to pay out for. They do not have to account for how they spent it because they are (sic) honorable members. Also that a lot of the things which ARE claimed for in detail actually amount to enhancing the capital asset of an MP ie are not a real 'expense' at all. There is a further category of MPs who pretend that their cheap little 'constituency home' is their 'real' home then run up (and claim for) all sorts of expenses on a house they buy in central London (even when their own constituency is not far from Westminster Jon Cruddas!)
Look at the list of some who voted for this evil little measure (including ministers) in the commons and you will know where to sniff for some of the worst abusers.
What a negative mean-spirited bunch you lot are! I worked for an MP for a few years and I can say without hesitation that he worked harder than anyone I have subsequently worked for - private sector and public sector (including NHS staff).
ReplyDeleteThe critical issues is that they should be audited and published.
ReplyDeleteThat way quite a few MPs would be in jail for false accounting.
Of course Stuart there are a lot of hard-working MPs. Doesnt give them a right to steal from the public as some of them clearly do (and not always the hard-working ones). With the fiddle on travel to constituencies and the accommodation, the fiddles over 'subsistence payments' and employing family members who barely ever lift a finger on inflated salaries, some MPs get well over £100 k already. Then there are the Ministers who fiddle things both ways. How the hell can you run up the same expenses as a back bench MP when you are meant to be working (and being paid expenses) almost full-time in a Department?
ReplyDelete"I realise that they are indeed gentlemen and we are merely players".
ReplyDeleteNo, the MPs are not gentleman now but players, paid for what they do.
I agree with Tapestry; being an MP will not be a proper job till we are out of the EU.
Anonymous at 3.24pm, my comment was not directed at people wanting to check up on MPs' spending. I agree 100%. I think all receipts should be available to view online as pdfs.
ReplyDeleteMy comment that a lot of people posting comments are mean-spirited was directed at all those saying they are paid far too much, or that they should live on benefits.
They are hard-working people who deserve a decent professional salary. I agree with Iain.
And if the voters in a particular constituency keep re-electing a useless MP then that's their own stupid fault.
How about no salary?
ReplyDeleteThey bleat on enough about public service , fine , do it for the love of it , commute once a week (not first class)stay in a govt hostel and eat the same food given to sqauddies.
The argument that you need to pay well to attract quality is laughable , most of them are unemployable outside of govt non jobs.
It's increasingly clear to me that the Incidental Expenses Provision should not exist in its present form. Instead, I think MPs should get an allowance which can only pay for the rent of a second home, and which varies with the local rents (so MPs who have their main home in London do not get to rent a palace in the constituency). The situation whereby MPs can keep any capital gain from owning a second home in London or in their constituency after leaving Parliament is clearly untenable.
ReplyDeleteHaving been outspoken in defending MPs against general and unsubstantiated claims of freeloading, and having worked for two MPs, perhaps I will be listened to with a degree of confidence that I know the background of what I am saying.h
Iain,
ReplyDeleteYou're blog isn't quite the same without the "real Verity."
Complete transparency, of course. But why not build a block of flats for Members whose constituencies are outside London? They could stay rent free of course, as could their families if they want them with them. Then we wouldn't have to meet any housing need in cash - they'd be paying for their constituency homes themselves. I'm sure there are drawbacks, but not as bad as the constant bad feeling that MPs are somehow diddling.
ReplyDeleteHarry's idea is a pretty good one. ALternatively, MPs who make a capital gain from a second home funded wholly or in part by expenses should repay the expenses (plus interest) at the time the gain is realised.
ReplyDeleteMPs have only themselves to blame as they have a system of pay and expenses unique to them, approved by them and frankly a total muddle... and I did not know their expenses were from from HMCE inspection.
ReplyDeletePay them an increased salary yes. But reduce their ridiculously generous pension arrangements, make their expenses invoice backed and subject to HMCE approval an dthen they can keep them private - after all what need to see what they spend if HMCE check it all.
They cannot hav etheir cake twice and eat it: which is what they want ... a muddle of their own creation.
I'm somewhat baffled that there should even be a debate around this.
ReplyDeleteMp's get expenses, for which they should have to account for to the penny, they are getting money from the public purse. period.
Further this nice little earner many seem to be on by having 2 properties needs to be shut down as well imo.
Harry has the right idea, take a large grace and favour property and convert it so they have somewhere to stay whilst in the city.
An mp's job is to serve his constituents, not to get fat on the public trough, don't like it? retire and let some more altruistic minded local take over the task.
Harry, my (Tory) MP has tried suggesting the 'block of flats' idea, suggesting studio flats with concierge service, close to Westminster for all those who represent constituencies outside London, or whose family home is outside the M25.
ReplyDeleteIt went down like a lead balloon, we suspect because it would put something of a restriction on, shall we say, extra-curricular activities.....
Sorry Iain but you're wrong. Yes, M.P.'s can claim £23,083 Additonal Costs Allowance. They can ALSO claim £21,339 Incidental Expenses Provision. The object, of course, is to get the money one way or the other - if a cost can't be claimed as an additonal expense it'll be an incidental. It's all here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-04192.pdf
If you're intending to be an M.P. you really need to brush up on how the dodges work.
The only person falling into a trap is you by believing that £59k is all the money an M.P. can personally pocket for nothing. They are on much, much more simply by claiming so-called 'expenses'.
It's all in 'Yes, Minister'.
Observer
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine why Oliver Letwin, whose Rothschild's salary much be in the hundreds of thousands, would care a fig whether he gets another £23K in expenses for keeping a second home.
An MP without any outside interests on a salary of £59K would be much more concerned about it.
No, Mitch - you are the one who is wrong - the I.E.P. is for running the office - buying computers, printers, print cartridges, office supplies, running websites - that sort of thing. And that doesn't go far when you have to answer over 100 letters a week. Constituents demand a lot these days and most MPs and staff earn every penny.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, all MP's expenses should be open to scrutiny - including what they pay staff. You will find many staff are short changed because of the inflated salaries that some of them pay to family members who may or may not be doing a job. Or those who insist of having a retinue of staff to whom they pay peanuts.
As for the ones who think MPs should do it for free - get a life. Nurses, doctors and teachers are doing a service - should they do it for free? Would you work for free?
Come on chaps (and chapesses of course) be fair.
ReplyDeleteSay a Scottish New Lab MP got tooth ache whilst busying himself around the Palace of W.
And say, he wasn't able to find an NHS dentist to sort things out within easyish reach of said Palace of W.
I think we'd all agree, on humanitarian grounds, that he should go 'private'.
And I think we'd all agree that this would be a reasonable expense since he'd have a good NHS dentist in his Scottish constituency.
Surely it would be unreasonable to expect him to declare this expense of private dentistry and in so doing repudiate the ethos of NuLab.
After all this might draw attention to TBliars failed promise of NHS dentistry for all.
Anybody know if Gordon's 'Smile' would be considered a legit expense ?
Just a thought.
I have three part-time staff who commute from the North East to just outside of London. They share a car for their weekly journeys.
ReplyDeleteThree days work in the South East pays sufficient salary - though nowhere near MP's salary and expense level - for them to support themselves and their families, pay their tiny mortgages in the North East and to pay for shared accommodation in the South East. They do not receive expenses for their accommodation or travel costs.
Why should MPs have a substantially better deal than these three hard working people - who frankly are considerably better trained and more capable than most MPs?
I don't believe for one moment that raising MP's salaries - and by default, their golden pension packages - would improve the calibre of MPs. With a few notable exceptions, the more these people are paid, the more useless and the greedier they seem to become.
MP's expenses - and perks such as Duty Free cigs and booze - should be drastically cut. Make this remote parliamentary elite live in the real world like the rest of us, then perhaps they might legislate with a jot more realism.
lady finchley - check the link I gave. I did say it was all there but you didn't believe me. Computer equipment is loaned to members. Staffing costs are also seperate.
ReplyDeleteThere's an episode of 'Yes, Minister' where Hacker is trying to increase M.P.'s remuneration. Direct salary increases are politically no-no. The answer was to create or increase allowances for things previously paid for out of salary, thereby effectively increasing salary.
The current system is explicitly designed to allow M.P.'s to fiddle it.
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteYou are right - They are entitled to 3 or 4 and then have to buy any additional ones. They also have to buy their own fax machines. These are for the MP and members of staff but you would be amazed at the number who use one of their allotment of computers for the wife or kids.
I wonder just how many of those who say MPs do nothing have actually worked in the House - not many I'd wager. In every profession you will find slackers but tell me, would you want to spend every Friday and Saturday going to fetes and gladhanding constituents?
More transperency by all means but get the thing in perspective.
At the risk of repeating what has already been suggested on another thread:
ReplyDeleteIncrease MP's salaries to something just politically acceptably south of £100k.And forbid them from any other paid employment.
Abolish all 'allowances' including those for second houses and IEPs.
Provide all MPs with office space, secretaries, research staff, computers and office equipment centrally, allocated and administered by the Parliamentary authorities, on the basis of need, portfolios, committees sat on etc. (This avoids the 'wife / family on the payroll' scams
All other expenses claimed - travel etc. to be on the basis on receipts produced, and evidence that it was on MP's / constituency rather than party business (and subject to teh same HMRC scrutiny as the rest of us).
Thus, MPs would be on the same basis as any other corporate employee - provided with all the resources necessary to do their jobs, reimbursed for out of pocket expenses, and with all the old familiar fiddles and scams blocked. This would surely be to MPs' advantage as there would be little if any scope for abuse.
It's so simple that it'll never happen.
MP's should not have any excemption whatsoever, otherwise how can they understand the effects of their own policies.
ReplyDeleteThe Incidental Expenses Provision is for the running of the parliamentary offices - so that MPs staff can order pens and ink cartridges (and, if you work in Portcullis House, fans so that you don't expire from the heat). Without this, it would be pretty difficult for MPs (or rather, their staff) to take up constituents' cases etc etc. The abuse of the Additional Costs Allowance on the other hand is a joke. If MPs want to claim for their gardeners, Kitchen Aid food processors or their ipods, they should be willing to account for that to their constituents.
ReplyDeletep.s. If we want to attract intelligent, hard-working people into politics, MPs probably should be paid more.
The Additional Cost Allowance is for the second London home and is around £23K. The Incidental Costs Allowance is for staff salaries, eqipment, stationery etc. I'm a pedant, I know, but I used to pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteThe Hitch beat me to my preferred solution: Build a couple of blocks of one bedroom flats somewhere in London (Brixton or a really grotty part of the East End would get my vote) and tell MP's that they could live there or make their own arrangements and commute.
ReplyDeleteIf they really wanted to spoil themselves they could even have a restarant (unsubsidised) and their own bar (also unsubsidised).
Then subtract the rent from their salaries or charge them tax for a benefit in kind.
All other legitimate expenses should then be payable only on presentation of a valid receipt and be publically declared.