One of the most controversial issues in recent months has been MPs’ expenses. I recently received this letter from the Prime Minster and I have been asked to vote on it this week. Do you think this would be a better system for MPs’ expenses?
Dear Parmjit,
Going round the country I have been struck by the comments that are made by young people when I meet them about the jobs they want to do when they grow up.
I meet large numbers of people who want to be doctors and nurses, many who want to be teachers and firemen and ambulancemen and many who want to be in the caring services. And when I ask them why they want to do what they plan to do, they say because they want to make a difference.
But these days I rarely meet anyone who wants to be a Member of Parliament when they grow up and that is a shame, because I think MPs can make an enormous difference to people they represent – whether its voting for laws that improve the whole of the country in or whether it is fighting the cause of a single constituent who needs your help. And we need future generations of committed young people to come into politics.
Now the vast majorSo I am announcing today urgent proposals to make our system of MPs’ allowances and expenses simpler and less generous.
Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life are continuing to carry out an independent review into the system so we can make permanent changes.
But I believe we have to act urgently with interim proposals to restore people’s confidence that MPs are there to serve the public and not serve themselves.
And I want a vote to take place to overhaul the current system as early as next week.
A detailed written statement setting out our will be made by Harriet Harman but its main points are:
- the additional costs allowance – or second homes allowance – should be abolished and replaced by a flat rate daily allowance. This will reflect the fact that MPs do incur extra costs from working in two different places but it should be based on attendance in the House of Commons.
- those ministers who live in official residences would not be entitled to this allowance. Nor would MPs within travelling distance of Westminster – they would receive a London supplement similar to London weighting of salaries.
- the Committee on Standards in Public Life is examining the rules governing employment of spouses or other relatives. But in the interim, staff appointed by MPs should, without exception, become direct employees of the House of Commons, which will now be centrally responsible for their employment terms and conditions, contracts, and the payment of their salaries within the statutory limit allowed – and will have the right to make an audit and independent assessment of such contracts.
- while the committee on standards in public life looks into the issue more fully, we will ensure there is greater transparency on second jobs held by MPs. Where members of parliament have a second source of income from second jobs, every payment should be declared with a full description of what it is for and who paid it. There shall also be a full declaration of the hours worked for the payment received.
I want to discuss these interim proposals with the other party leaders and hope we can reach consensus. We will ask the House of Commons to approve them next week. With these changes I hope that the work of MPs can become recognised again for what it should be – a service to the public.ity of MPs I know do an excellent job. They are in public service not for what they can get, but for what they can give.
Yet the issue of expenses is casting a cloud over the whole of Parliament. So MPs need to have the humility to recognise that the country has lost confidence in the current system. To restore our faith in Parliament, and the good that it can do on the public’s behalf, we must commit to tightening up the system of allowances urgently.
Every MP I know wants to live by the rules, but for too long some of these rules have been insufficiently clear. So we need to make the rules clearer, and we also need to save money.
3 Comments
May 9, 2009 at 8:19 am
My brother in law works on sub contract work which takes him all over the UK but any extra expenses he gets are taxed as payment in kind, he does not have a second home allowance and quite frankly the line trotted out by politicians that you worked within the rules is blatantly and morally wrong. As for legal peoceedings against who leaked the info, its public money, you lot are public servants and all should be declared. I have to declare to the government my earnings and politicions should make public all expenses claimed then we can vote you out when the time is nigh if you “worked within the rules”.
May 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm
It is wrong to have a standard daily allowance. Instead it should be a claim for expenses incurred, with receipts, to a maximum of say £150 per day.
Even better would be for a negotiated daily rate to include an evening meal at a number of selected mid-range hotels in the centre of London. This is what companies such as BA and IBM do, and they get significantly cheaper room rates by guaranteeing a number of bookings each year. The total cost per month could then be billed direct to the Fees Office for payment with a detailed breakdown going to each party leader for analysis. Costs for room service and minibar use would not be covered, but the evening meal could include two glasses of house wine.
May 21, 2009 at 6:02 am
Act like the middle management of companies – expenses are ONLY expenses.
I personally do think that for MPs outside the Home Counties a second home in London is justified, but that it should be a fixed allowance, enough to rent a 1 bed flat within walking distance of Parliament. Other MPs should be allowed to claim for overnight hotels (cheap ones, or bulk rate negotiated centrally with local hotels) when needed at the House very early the next day, or late at night.
No gardens, no furniture, no duck islands, moats or ducky moated islands