Jan 2010 11

Call to Action: The final MPs' expenses consultation92

Back in the autumn, Sir Christopher Kelly's inquiry into MP's expenses went well. There was a broad public consultation that got a large response. The public made their views extremely clear. As a result, a hefty block of
excellent recommendations was delivered to Parliament – see here
- and party leaders publicly agreed to support them.

But there
is still one, final consultation to settle the issue, launched last week by
the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). We have produced a question by question guide (below) to our views on each question, and the consultation itself can be found here.

It is extremely important that as many of us as possible respond to this consultation with a strong message. The public's responses will determine how tough or soft IPSA's new
rules will be. There is a very real danger that last minute, coordinated lobbying by MPs could water down Kelly's proposals significantly. The only way to defeat that attempt is to send IPSA a clear and overwhelming message that a fudge is unacceptable and the Kelly proposals should be implemented in full.

If you'd like to make sure IPSA doesn't backslide at the last minute, we encourage everyone to go on line to contribute
to the consultation – http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/. For full details of the IPSA proposals, see here. (A summary is available on the last few pages.)

Here is our guide to the 18 questions in the consultation. Feel free to use our responses as you see fit. 

Q.1: Do you agree that the CSPL (Kelly inquiry) principles, supplemented as proposed, should form the basis of new expenses system?

YES. The principles laid out in the CSPL (Kelly) report – regarding the probity, transparency, and proportionality of any system) should underpin the new rules.

However, while IPSA is right that the system "must give the public confidence that high standards of honesty and decency will be upheld", its other supplemental principle – "that the system should prohibit MPs from entering into arrangements which might appear to create a conflict of interests in the the use of public resources" – may be problematic. While we fully support IPSAs efforts to limit the possibility of MPs inappropriately channelling public funds, we are concerned that the principle may be interpreted to restrict MPs’ outside interests. Kelly was right to conclude that outside interests can be beneficial for Parliament, by giving MPs a connection to the real world, and the new system should reflect this.

Q.2 Do you agree with our proposal to concentrate on expenses rather than allowances wherever possible?

YES. Instead of allowances, the system should run on the principle of reimbursing expenses that are incurred. Allowances have clearly proved open to abuse and have encouraged a culture of claiming as much as possible, rather than just what is necessary to do the job. As the principles suggest, total transparency of all expense claims and allowance usage must be at the centre of the new system.

Q.3 Do you agree that there should be annual limits to the amount that can be spent from public funds on each of the main elements of our expenses scheme, except travel and subsistence?

Yes, so long as the system remains based on essential expenses, and the limits do not become seen as a target to aim for (as the allowance limits currently are). Subsistence (i.e. food etc) should not be exempt, though – there should be a firm limit there, too.

Q.4 Do you agree with our approach to the submission of claims?

YES. MP's must be responsible for their own expenses, even if their staff are involved in spending the money or accounting that expenditure to IPSA. No longer should MPs be able to excuse their indiscretions by claiming that someone else submitted was fulfilling out their expense form on their behalf.

Q.5 Are you content with our proposed approach to the publication of claims?

YES. All claims (approved and rejected) should be published in full – both online and in paper form – by IPSA at very regular occasions. The only information to be withheld should be that identified by the High Court in their previous ruling on publication of MPs’ expenses – i.e. credit card and bank account details.

Q.6 Do you support the idea of requiring MPs to produce an annual report of their use of public funds?

NO. An annual report is frankly unnecessary if full details of all claims are to be published every few months, as Kelly recommends (see answer to Question 5). Moreover, giving an MP the opportunity to produce a glossy publication about their own work at taxpayers’ expense gives them an incumbent propaganda advantage, much like the regularly abused Communications Allowance.

Q.7 We propose that MPs are eligible to claim for accommodation expenses unless their constituency contains a station within London transport zones 1-6. Do you agree with this approach?

NO. Journey time, rather than a distance measure (such as the Zone 1-6 proposal) should determine eligibility for accommodation expenses. While we appreciate that it may be easier to have a simple measure such as the proposed Zone 1-6, IPSA's role is to develop and oversee the best system, not the easiest.

As workers whose job is in London, many MP's living outside Zone 1-6 are just too close to Parliament to legitimately claim for accommodation in London. Many thousands of commuters make similar journeys each day, and for some MPs living outside Zone 1-6 the journey into Westminster is easier (and not necessarily significantly more expensive) than it is for some MP's who live within Zone 1-6.

Of course, as the parliamentary day is not always equivalent to a normal working day, MP's are not always regular commuters. This problem must be corrected through changes to the parliamentary time table, rather than through the expenses system. It is perfectly feasible to make the Parliamentary day conform to more normal work times, and thus to enable easier commuting, particularly by reducing recess and holiday time. Such a reform would not only make parliament itself more effective, but also more attractive to candidates with young children.

IPSA should limit accommodation expenses to those MP's who live an hour or more from a central London train station (within Zone 1-2). Once this system is in place, MPs will no doubt move quickly to reform their anachronistic parliamentary time table.

Q.8 Which of the following is most important in a long term system for accommodating MPs: MPs having responsibility for their own actions; cost to the taxpayer; no money passing through MPs' hands; flexibility for MPs to identify properties that meet their particular needs?

Although all are important, preventing MPs from making a capital gain must be the main focus of new rules.  A less transparent and more flexible system may seem attractive on paper, and even potentially cheaper in theory, but the most important thing is to ensure the public are in control of an honest and transparent system, in which MPs have no potential or incentive to profit (even temporarily) at the taxpayers' expense. Any system that lacks transparency and allows for capital gain will inevitably end up being extremely costly – both financially to taxpayers and reputationally to the House of Commons.

Q.9 When should the payment of mortgage interest to existing MPs be ended?

Current IPSA proposals will not allow new MPs – elected later this year – to claim for mortgage interest payments. Re-elected MPs will – for an indeterminate time – be allowed to claim mortgage interest payments, with the understanding that they will terminate such contracts when possible.

It is unfeasible for all mortgage interest payment to be eneded immediately, due to the time that can be involved in the act of selling a house. However all sitting MPs must be instructed to instigate the sale of their taxpayer-funded homes now, with a view to terminating their mortagage contracts as soon as possible. As a guard against MPs dragging their feet, all payments should cease to be available from 1st November 2011. As recommended by Kelly, all profits on the properties must be returned to the taxpayer.

Q.10 Do you agree with our proposed approach to accommodation expenses for MPs with caring responsibilities?

NO. While those MPs with disabilities (or with spouses with disabilities) should be entitled to accommodation appropriate to their needs, 'caring responsibilities' relating to children should not(in itself) warrant higher levels of accommodation allowance. Taxpayers will cover the accommodation of MPs on the basis that they are working away from home. Like many people, this will involve having a small place in London, suitable for one or two people, but not to house the family. Arrangements for MPs must reflect what is standard practice in the private sector for employees who work away from home for three to four nights a week. Such demands do not warrant a public subsidy to allow families to live with MPs in London.

Some consideration must be given to the issue of MP's who are single parents, or individuals who the sole carer for an

elderly or infirm parent. IPSA will have to judge such cases individually, but it would be appropriate for the system to accommodate such circumstances.

Q. 11 Do you agree with our proposed list of running costs for accommodation which might be met through public funds?

YES. Within the limits to be set by IPSA, some reimbursement for council tax, water, electricity, gas or other fuel, ground rent, contents insurance, service charges and security appear fair. The exclusion of all 'improvement' costs – cleaning, gardening, furnishing, repairs or maintenance – is also correct.

Q.12 Which of the options that we set out [page 43 of the consultation] do you favour in providing assurance about claims for travel expenses?

Option 2, as providing details of each journal is the most practicable approach and is widely used in the private sector. IPSA must ensure that it is vigilant in scrutinising claims made under this system.  

Q.13 Do you agree with our approach to travel by public transport, including ordinarily travelling standard class?

BROADLY YES. These proposals are a welcome and significant improvement on the existing system.  The concept of 'ad hoc' provision is quite concerning, though, as MP's should be reimbursed soley for parliamentary or constituency travel. Where MPs travel around the UK on fact-finding trips, these are already funded by the Parliamentary Committees that arrange them. IPSA should clarify what it means by 'ad-hoc'. Beyond that however, the proposals should be implemented in full.  

Q.14 We propose to prohibit the use of public funds in the employment of family members by MPs. Do you agree with this approach?

YES, we agree fully with the proposed prohibition, with one extension. The current definition of family member in the proposals is too narrow, and would arguably allow siblings and other close relatives who don’t live in the MP’s family home to be employed at taxpayers’ expense. This is unacceptable, and the wider Welsh Assembly definition of family members should be used, to ensure siblings, aunts and uncles and so on are forbidden in order to eliminate any prospect of this becoming a scandal again.

Q.15 We propose that IPSA should prohibit MPs from renting from, or purchasing goods or services from, members of their families. Do you agree with this approach?

YES.

Q.16 Do you agree with our proposed approach to communications expenditure? (Page 59 of the consultation document)

YES. The Communications Allowance should be abolished, and is effectively an incumbency benefit that gives sitting MPs an unfair advantage.

Q.17 Do you believe there should be any form of payment in the event of an MP leaving Parliament, either voluntarily or otherwise?

NO. As IPSA itself says in the consultation document, the volatility associated with the job of being an MP is well understood by both sitting MPs and candidates. An MP who stands down makes a conscious choice not to seek re-election, and should therefore not be rewarded for that choice. Similarly, an MP that loses in an election has effectively been rejected by their constituents; again, this does not deserve reward. MPs should be free to take out their own unemployment insurance at personal cost if they wish.

Q.18 What impact do you believe our proposals might have on the diversity of representation in the House of Commons?

The implication that IPSA's proposals, or an expenses system as whole, affects the diversity of representation in the House is a red herring that should be avoided at all times. As political parties are the gatekeepers to parliamentary seats, in many cases effectively deciding on behalf of constituents who will represent them in Parliament, any real concern about diversity in the House must be directed towards parties.

Related Posts

  • Keith Armstrong

    Your 18 conclusions seem to be sound to me. They should be implemented in full.
    Keith Armstrong

  • Geoff Hood

    I agree with all of the above except Q 14. As a retired business man, I think that employing family members is a way of having staff that one can rely on, rather than using a stranger. With safeguards built in so that the position is not abused.
    On a lighter note, family are less likely to ask for raises or paid overtime!

  • Ron Lamb

    I would suggest that the current MP’s and system are so corrupt that there is little we can do.
    The Ballot Box is our salvation, but not to re-elect the same incompetent unemployable
    village idiots we have now.
    They have been trained by the EU politicans, and are more than happy to sell the County as long as they do not have to work!!!!

  • [email protected]

    We have a political class who are totally out of touch with the electorate. People will only get better government when they make more fuss and take more intrest. We have the government we deserve i am afraid

  • michael eve

    These responses are very sensible. However is it clear that MPs will have to fill in and sign a standard expenses form with supporting receipts. All payments to staff should be made by the House Authorities based
    on a request for payment from the MP so that all tax and NI matters can be handledefficiently

  • Dave

    I’ve responded to the consultation and await the results

  • C Pipe-Wolferstan

    Congratulations on your success on this issue. I hope that you will be able to pursue the matter of EEC corruption with as much success.

  • mikidiki

    Ref 14: Personally I see nothing amiss with MPs employing their wives as secretaries. For one thing it cuts out affairs like Cecil Parkinson’s and others and wives are more loyal and do an enormous amount of unpaid work otherwise. But no other family members.
    Of course this whole exercise is a waste of time since the three political parties are all hogs at the trough with cabinet and shadow cabinet members guilty of inflated claims, flipping, etc.

  • Alan Grahame

    I’d like to know how many MPs, especially Labour MPs claimed for accounting costs and help with their tax returns. Tax under Brown has become far more complex and higher earners or business owners invariably have to resort to accountants to deal with their returns. This cost is not allowable for people at large and I don’t see why MPs should be able to charge it. If Labour MPs claimed for accounting costs it would demonstrate that tax has become too complex even for those who make the law

  • Keith Phillips

    In general I agree with your proposals. However, I do think it is reasonable to employ a wife as secretary, provided that as for all private sector employees a proper contract of employment is enforced giving details of the service to be supplied, hours of work etc and the means of checking that the terms of contract are honoured. Also, the expenses allowed cannot be divorced from the salary for the job – I believe a salary of c£100k is more in line with the conditions and responsibilities of the job.

  • Jan

    You’ve done a great job! Like a couple of the others who’ve commented though, I agree that family members can make great employees – as long as there is full transparency and their input can be accounted for. I strongly believe that any expense claim we wouldn’t normally be able to get past our employers – or any claim the self-employed could find themselves in trouble with HMRC over – shouldn’t be allowed for the MPs either. We who work for a living ought to have the same breaks and restrictions, don’t you think?

  • mikidiki

    Having answered the consultation questions it is obvious that the whole scenario is still far too complex and therefore open to abuse.
    We should be campaigning for:
    1. A reduction in the number of MPs to say 400 or even less
    2. An annual salary for MPs of say £150,000
    3. NO claims for anything, no expenses, no accommodation, no advisers, no travel, zilch
    4, A small, fixed number of staff per MP on a contracted wage structure
    5, Thus no need for supervisory bodies of overpaid, inefficient civil servants
    6, Since most of our laws are made in EU, MPs should be allowed to take paid employment outside of Parliament, that is, if any employer would want them!

  • Ingenieur.

    The desire to be an MP should be seen as a VOCATION, and not a lucrative career, and rewarded as other vocational callings such as vicars, nurses, care workers.
    MPs are currently OVER-paid. They can stand for safe seats with no qualifications or training apart from being time-served party hacks. No other job offers such huge reward levels to unqualified people – many of whom would be virtually unemployable in the real world.

  • http://barryukip.spaces.live.com/blog Barry Harding

    As a UKIP PPC it is tempting to favour any action by the sleazy LibLabCon which will further damage their standing (if that is possible). But realistically I agree with most of the TPA responses. I would extend the PERSONAL responsibility for Claims to Tax Returns. Indeed it is difficult to understand how MPs can vote for a Budget and then find it impossible to complete their own tax return. If the Budget is that complex, how were they able to understand it in order to Vote in the HoC?

  • Duncan Stewart

    Reasonable expenses should be allowed. Not food,or cleaning, or improvements. If property lacks basic, repeat basic, amenities then claims to be allowed. Claims were allowed/turned down in a very variable manner. Some of the blame was not just the MP’s fault except for the asking/trying on of claims for the obviously ridiculous.
    Yes to mortgage help unless renting is cheaper. NO capital gain allowed on house as this belongs to US not the MP. It should be sold and any profit to th Treasury!! Allowances unless capped promote fraud. Faminly emlpoyed as staff to be monitored but preferably not permitted.

  • Doug White

    All of the piece, and the replies, demonstrate that we must remove this charade of democracy!.
    Like it or not,proportional representation would extend the ability of the public to control politicians and referendums would bring us closer to the Swiss model of voter responsibility.

  • gillian weidmann

    I am very surprised at the number of responses supporting the employment of family members. Unlike a private business, where the firm pays out of its own profit, the taxpayer is funding this cosy set up. Furthermore, I do not see how it follows that a family member is better value. there is much less incentive to obtain good value from an employee when the employer is already benefiting from the additional earnings funnelled into his household, and the natural preference means that the post is never really available to be filled by local talent within the MP’s community. i would like to see MPs employing and taking on training duties for the long term unemployed etc. there is all sorts of scope for value to the taxpayer here. after all, they’re supposed to really care about these issues. right? charity etc begins at home.

  • http://townravens.blogspot.com/ Viv Evans

    Thanks for your replies – I find myself in broad agreement on this, having had a quick read-through of the questionnaire last week.
    Generally, I would be against a major rise in MP’s salary. The argument that high salaries have to be paid – anywhere in the public as well as the private sector – so as to attract ‘the best’ has become totally threadbare in view of the last couple of years: ‘the best’ have brought this country to her knees.
    What we need, especially in Parliament, are people with common sense, with life experience outside Westminster Village and the political parties, and who do not regard being an MP as a glittering career leading to riches.

  • Bill Waite

    Basically spot-on!

  • http://slh.nhs.uk Jim

    This government has reneged on all of its promises – education, health, immigration, crime etc. They have encouraged massive debt for over a decade, and now the taxpayer has bailed out the banks and motor industry, and will see higher personal taxes to diminish the debt. They still find money to fight an illegal war yet hospitals and schools are losing jobs galore due to finance constraints and lack of student discipline respectively. There should have been a mass demonstration outside parliament when the expenses scandel broke to let them know the utter disgust and contempt the public hold MPs in

  • Ray Percy

    Qo 15….Should be extended to include “FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY”. Not too Difficult to operate. If expense claims are published the electorate will be monitoring every item and drawing attention to misdemeanours! &, I am sure that the inclusion will make m.p.s think before they give an order to “chummy”

  • Ray

    Generally, I agree with the TPA views, with one exception . . .
    Like many people here who have actually set up and run businesses, I have no objection in principle to employing relatives. It can be advantageous in many ways, not least having potential access 24/7. Obviously, if they’re swinging the lead then they should go but, despite my contempt MPs, I don’t think the majority of spouses involved are worthless parasites. The few I have seen myself appear to be good value for money.
    The main point that has been overlooked by many is the fact that MPs should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes and so on as the rest of us. Lots of people have had to work away from home for long periods & enjoy no tax or other concessions at all, let alone having the tab picked up by the tax payer. Why should MPs be so privileged? No wonder they’re all so out of touch withy reality!
    Ray.

  • OT Pate

    I have replied as you so sensibly have suggested. However I too feel that MPs should be able to employ their spouse but at a lower salary/payment limit than non family employees

  • Michael Geddes

    I agree with almost everything but
    I cannot stress highly enough that if the British public does not start distancing itself from the the three mainstream political parties, then it will continue to get the government it deserves. The attitudes and modus operandi of these parties is mired and ingrained in self preservation, limitless arrogance, ruthless ambition and greed, and often treats the electorate with barely concealed contempt. Many of the comments attributed to MPs FOLLOWING the expenses scandal show clearly that they really do believe themselves to be superior beings. The vast majority of our politicians are totally and utterly out of step with the values and wishes of the electorate. That electorate will soon have another chance to ensure radical change. History teaches us however, that that opportunity will once more be scorned.

  • Joe

    I agree with the 18 points, but not the idea of giving MP’s £150k

  • Anthony J Miller

    I support the TPA submission on MPs expenses and as a Taxpayer insist that MPS should be called to account for every penny that they claim. Instead of electors pandering to them and treating them as somebody special they must be made to realize that they are there to serve and be served.

  • Anthony J Miller

    error. Final wording should have read ‘and not to be served’. Sorry

  • chris bonnick

    i think that we should vote for a party that is for the people of great britain & that will stop any unnecessary spending of our taxes on. UKIP for instance.

  • John Gilbey

    All politicians have been discredited by the seemingly greedy minority. However, they are all guilty of not pursuing the policies they were elected on, only on how much they can make.
    None of the party leaders are convincing that they understand what the public want from their MPs, they all have their own agenda and could not care less about the public. Until there is a change of attitude from ALL MPs there is likely to be less people voting at the next General Election; therefore letting back in those that are intent on bankrupting this country.

  • Tony at Tony T

    Seems ok. with regard to properties in London why doesn’t the government just buy flats for the mp’s to stay in to take the greed of ownership out of it.

  • Mrs.P.M.Allen

    Expenses should be paid ONLY subject to the rules and regulations of HM Inspector of taxes, just the same as expenses for any business man, who would not be entitled to an ongoing food allowance, but onlyexpense incurred in the process of his business. MPs have to eat, (just like the rest of us) where ever they are, so why should I, a hardup pensioner (taxed to the hilt) pay for their food on a weekly basis.

  • John

    I agree broadly on all points however I would like to remind people that MP’s who were ‘found’ out about the questionable expences they claimed always said ‘it was within the rules’ well who made the rules? -600+ MP’s did!! effectivly putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. What they didn’t account for was being found out ‘sucking the taxpayers blood’ that’s why these points MUST be put in place so they are accountable to who they should be – their ‘employers’ ie US – THE TAX PAYER (but sadly they are all to often so full of their self importantence that they have a habit of sticking two fingers up to the public)

  • Mr V G Lobo

    Thanks TPA. You have helped us the ordinary taxpayer tobe so dogged and shown tremendous stamina in pursuing these rogue MP’s.
    Another issue which i wold like you to champion on our behalf is a lot of these MP’s are being paid whether they attend the House or not. They peddle the line that they are busy in their constituency. The other day a highly important debate was taking place and there were barely 15/20 of them in the House. Now that we have the expenses in the Public Domain we must now try and get them to show their attendance records.
    Can you imagine any of us havinga job like this 0we can attend when we please,opt in and out of debates etc.

  • John Holmes

    I agree with most of the points, however,I think that expenses should be confined to reasonable travel, accomodation and SOME household costs like local council taxes. The problem I, like most, have is with paying for food and luxury goods.

  • R. Bonsall

    A fully and properly qualified person who prior to marriage to an MP is already employed by a Party, Constituency or MP should be allowed to continue in that emplyment

  • Alister Smith

    I, too, agree with the 18 points. But I also think that MPs should be paid much more. The wages of many senior civil servants should be reduced to fund this.

  • Alister Smith

    It’s crazy that the BBC’s DG gets paid more than four times what The Prime Minister gets paid. Public sector wages are in dire need of re-balancing, across the board.

  • Anne Bird

    MPs do not need more pay, a lot of people are currently suffering from LESS pay because of the country’s mess, so MPs should get less aswell. MPs also have a great amount of time off work, their sessions are not long enough!

  • http://web.mac.com/judystallard/iWeb/Gallery/Welcome.html Mike Stallard

    Well done! I agree.

  • Stella

    I agree with all the TPAs views with the exception of no. 14. employing one’s spouse.
    Because some Members have seriously abused the system it should not prohibit the honest from employing family members.
    As an vicar’s wife, now retired, I helped my spouse all the time although unpaid of course!
    But there are still honest, decent and hard-working folk about.
    Skewer the myth that to get the best you must pay the most. Most of us would be over the moon to earn the current salary of MPs and consider their pay more than adequate.
    Let’s hope the next intake will be more altruistic.

  • Tony Jackson

    Generally I agree with the points made and the emphases placed, but would stress that only reasonable expenses NECESSARILY incurred, only after proper perusal and checking,should be re-imbursed. Under no circumstances should an additional ALLOWANCE be paid, since this could be included in any calculation for pension or redundancy (ie when MP not re-elected). Even MPs’ salaries should be based on performance (no bonuses !)assessed regularly, and related to a Job Description.
    (How many other posts don’t bear a J.D. ?)

  • Susan Davenport

    I agree with much of what you have said although I do think MPs should be required to produce an annual report of their expenses. It doesn’t have to be glossy dossier and it could be limited to a certain number of words, eg 1,000, to cut down the risk of them blowing their own trumpet.
    Under no circumstances whatsoever should an MP be permitted to employ a member of his family, be they a blood relation such as a spouse, child, sibling or an in law. I worked for a short time for Derek Conway (who kicked off the expenses scandal) and it is my belief that I lost my job so that his wife could benefit. There may be sensible reasons for employing a member of the family but MPs have proved how untrustworthy they are and in particular, that they don’t see anything wrong in benefiting at the public’s expense.
    Under no circumstances whatsoever should MPs receive any funding once they have left office. They get good pensions and they can fight for jobs in the real world like everyone else.

  • Tony Brookes

    These responses are sensible and I agree with them BUT it still doesn’t really tackle the morality issue. I admit that I cannot think of a practical method except to make the penalty for breaching the rules removal from the house.

  • Brian Hodder

    We got into this state by not having the courage/ability to set & agree a market rate for the MPs job. Settle on a realistic salary level & these expenses criteria & move on to the important job of getting the UK back on its feet

  • mikidiki

    To reiterate my earlier proposal:-
    reduce the number of MPs;
    substantially increase the salaries of the remainder;
    limited number of salaried members of staff;
    Nothing else in the way of expenses, allowances, travel, accommodation .. everything out of the increased salary.
    Simple to organise and costing little to administer making corruption almost impossible.
    Q.E.D.

  • iain fleming

    hopefully the money grabbing traitors will follow the new rules – doubt it they will find another way to grab the cash.- hand more power to there mates in the EU – all sc*m/lairs/thieves/traitors-

  • Michael Moloney

    Surely a block of basic one bedroom flats near the houses of parliament, for the use of M.P’s saying over would be a solution. It would not need to be a large block as I rarely see more than a handful of M.P.s present at debates when I watch daytime t.v in parliament.

  • anthony jones

    With only 650 members of parliament have you considered the legal aid claims paid to dishonest lawyers with over 60,000 in practise in u k.If only 10% are “Milking the legal aid cow ” it makes M.P.claims pocket money in comparison.
    A.Jones

  • Richard

    No – no expenses I don’t get expenses – I don’t get food allowance – I’ve had to pay rent and council in two towns when having to find new employment running up £8k in debts, I’ve had to fund travel to and from interviews, overnight stays, eating out PARKING TICKETS!!! and I’m far from alone BBC recently featured one woman who lives in Glasgow Fri-Sat-Sun, but has to rent a room in London Mon-Thur for work … she gets no allowances – LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD FEEL OUR PAIN if you ever hope to represent us – bunch of pocket filling thieves had your chance and you abused it whilst PRIVATE SECTOR were priced out of home ownership the rotten MP’s were making capital gains on property bought with our TAXES – NO! NO! NO! – want to claim expenses then Abolish PAYE and we’ll all claim expenses, every single one of us

  • Simon Crome

    Ref. 14 The problem I have with the taxpayer paying for an MP’s employees is my inability to see why an MP needs any employees beyond a secretary. There should be provision for a secretary : any other employees should be at the MP’s own expense. If they are necessary, the MP will pay for them.
    As to family members, this is getting too arcane. What will stop the member for Eatandswill employing the daughter of the member for Great Troughing, and the member for Great Troughing employing the son of the member for Backscratching Parva, and the member for Backscratching Parva employing the civil partner of the member for Eatandswill?
    No, the taxpayer pays for one employee only. Who that employee should be is for the member to choose.

  • Dennis Paremain

    I agree with the eighteen points except for the suggestion of allowing MP’s a sum of £150,000 p.a.
    Additionally, spouces currently employed could be retained by their MP spouce, but with no further employment of near or distant relatives from now.

  • Steve Robson

    Just pay them more than the parasites at the TPA. of course we have no idea how much they are paid or by whom to seek to undermine our democracy, so we’ll have to estimate at £200k unless the TPA are going to suddenly walk the talk and become transparant.

  • James Jeffery

    I am basicly in agreement with the 18 points with the priviso that the number of MPs be reduced. We are controlled by the european corrupt community so why pay for the same job?

  • Matthew Lincoln

    Q10 – are you not concerned that you will put off normal, sane people from becoming MPs for more than a few years by making it a requirement that they live away from their family for 3 or 4 nights a week during Parliamentary sittings, particularly as you rightly argue these should be longer with shorter recesses? I would rather encourage for example, mothers of young children, to stand for election to Parliament and know they will have a second home large enough to bring their child with them.
    Otherwise a broadly sensible contribution to the debate, so please think about this one again!

  • Julie

    I agree with most of the comments, thanks for the guidance. Seems to me that many successful private companies manage this issue of senior executives’ expenses with considerably more accontability and much less abuse than our government. The fact that so many MPs lack the integrity to act in a principled manner may explain why they feel that everyone else needs to be subject to such excessive regulation to ensure that they behave responsibly.

  • Roandl John BLAIN

    Members of parliament should be paid their worth, with their salaries controlled by a small [no more than 3] panel, composed of perons on the Electoral roll, picked at random Annually. I suggest that the present salary is frozen for three years and then all increases in line with inflation.

  • TERRY BAYES

    i FULLY ENDORSE THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE AND WOULD PROMOTE THE FOLLOWING.
    PROVIDE ACCOMODATION FOR MEMBERS LIVING OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON. sHOULD ANY MEMBER REJECT THE PROFFERED ACCOMOADATION THEN HE OR SHE SHOULD PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCOMODATION.

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.com Mark Wallace

    Thank you all for your comments – it’s great that we’ve had thousands of people using the guide!
    To answer your query Matthew Lincoln @ 10.54am, the job of an MP by definition involves working away from home for the vast majority of constituencies. There are large numbers of people whose jobs involve being away from 5 nights a week or more for almost every week of the year, whereas MPs do 3 or 4 nights a week for about half the year and are considerably better paid than most.

  • [email protected]

    We can hardly expect anything different from this bunch but I hope that Cameron speaks up against any attempt to water down the recommendations. Should he fail to do so,and his previous record does not give cause for optimism, I can see disillusioned Tory voters going to single issue Parties with the danger therefrom of a hung Parliament or,even worse, another 4 years of this pathetic lot.Where is there another Maggie to save us?

  • C Bell

    I agree with the proposals, however I also agree with the contributors who have added that MP’s should have to attend the House of Commons on a regular basis….the number of MP’s should be greatly reduced as should their holiday allowance there should be no second home allowance….Buy a block of flats and they can then use those while in office.

  • Dave Smith

    The accomodation should be restricted to a 1 or 2 bed property and not money based. To give an example. The current allowance is just over 24000. Due to high property/rental values in London this gets you a small flat and pays for associated utility bills.However in the 2008/09 year there were 139 MPs who designated property in their constituency as their ‘second’ home.
    My MP claims for a rental of 18900. A simple check in the constituency Letting Agents shows that this sum gets you the equivalent of a 4/5 bed detached property and with it comes all the associated higher utility bills. So my MP lives in a grander property than most of her constituents (and fellow MPs whose second homes are near Westminster) and paid for by them as taxpayers.The higher utility bills? She recently claimed for a quarter’s gas bill of over 1000 pounds, and it wasn’t even for the winter months. In comparison, a fellow MP whose second home is near Westminster claimed just 27 pounds for gas in the same period.
    Bearing in mind that these allowances are for a single person part week use of the property, my MP’s bills are truly excessive.
    I suggest everyone look at MPs utility bill claims on the Parliament website, you will not only find many similar claims but also that a certain Shadow Minister has claimed a year total of over 4500 pounds for oil and electric on his second home. How many of you have such excessive fuel bills? (and bear in mind they are for a single person staying overnight for half the week)

  • Deborah

    Answer 18 is spot on. The parties choose the candidates – they have a lot to answer for.

  • M Wild

    I have replied as you so sensibly have suggested. However I too feel that there is no reason why MPs should not be able to employ their spouse but at a lower salary/payment limit than non family employees

  • Ian Harris

    MPs should be paid more, but their income and expenditure should be treated in exactly the same way by HMRC as the rest of us. Liars like Jackie Smith and others should be prosecuted. MPs should be able to employ their wives. MPs should be encouraged to have outside jobs – we have too many, especially on the Labour side – who have never run a business, never had a job outside the public sector, or indeed outside politics. No wonder they are all theory and no substance!

  • James P Whitman

    MPs should be teated the same as any other British tax payer. Pay them a salary of £60K and nothing else whatsoever and reduce their numbers to around 350. MPs often recite that they could earn a lot more in the private sector, a rude awakening beckons.

  • Unsworth

    Those who argue that MPs should be allowed to ‘employ’ their family members are wrong. These people are not employed by the MP, they are employed by the taxpayer. But the taxpayer has no say whatsoever over who is employed or the terms.
    Why should the taxpayer be expected to simply cough up? What guarantees are there that the recruitment process is in any way fair and that those selected are at all competent? What process is there to monitor performance? Is the taxpayer getting value for money? How do we know?

  • Douglas

    I agree with all Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations.
    I do not agree with family members being empoloyed, corruption is far to easy to fall into with family membership.
    I do not agree with our membership of a sleasy, corrupt unelected dictatorship EU. However,if the British people lack the guts to demand an exit, then we must have a large reduction of serving MPs.
    There should be allowances only for ‘On the job’ exspenses. Accommodation in London should be in small purpose built, one bedroom flats. Eating out expenses must be capped at a reasonable level.
    Most of our current MPs would be hard pressed to find employment above filling shelves in Supermarkets, so I would like to see a ‘Skills Criterion’, introduced.
    The bottom line must be: If any MP refuses to payback money they have ‘Embezzled’ from the taxpayer, they should be removed from office, and sued in court. If any MP does not like the system, then leave, simple.
    All MPs must must be made to sign a ‘Charter of Employment’, which will state the ‘Rules of Employment’, including levels of expense allowances.
    The Bottom line: The British people must demand without question, the full iimplementation of Sir Christopher Kelly’s reccommendations and nothing less.

  • vernon wood

    Before discussing future MP’s terms of employment shouldn’t we demand a real reckoning for their past transgressions? It seems many miscreants are getting away with part repayment of ill-gotten gains …but surely they should receive real punishment in the form of substantial fines, or where appropriate, doing a stretch inside ? Before we put down fresh straw, let’s thoroughly clear out the stables. Right ?

  • brian kelly

    I think it scandalous that another ‘agreement’ has emerged from the murk. Under speaker Martin an agreement to enable privacy if mp’s pay back an ‘agreed’ sum. This must be exposed and stopped.

  • brian kelly

    I disagree with the IPSA – How it was set up – why was it set up. I understood that the Kelly proposals were to be accepted and suddenly out of the shadows this IPSA committee emerged [no doubt set up by mp's] with a chairman with previous labour links. It is to replace the discredited fees committee. It looks more like the Fees committee with a new name. Mp’s will fight like ferrets to take control of this agenda again. One certain solution is total transparency – accept the Kelly proposals [if the public agree to them] – and that should be enough. Very simple.

  • Malcolm Hogg

    I’ve responded broadly as suggested. While I have some sympathy with the view that employing relatives should be allowed it has been abused and I don’t see that it is possible in practice to prevent abuse. I’ve therefore accepted your suggestion and said”no” to this question. Thanks for bringing this to or attention and keep up the good work.

  • frank pope

    There are far too many MPs. The US has 435 in House of representatives, which includes 100 Senators (2 from each State)in the US Senate: this with a population of 300million.
    We have to fund 646 MPs, 700 Lords, and 750 MEPs (true – a mere 87 from the 9 regions of UK), and God (short for Gordon)alone knows how many constitute ‘The Regional Assemblies’???? WHY????
    FACT: The official title of the European Union is ‘The European Union of the Regions’ NOTE: not ‘of the Nations’.
    Ours is the Mother of Parliaments, but like all mothers do, it’s grown old and out of date. It needs streamlining. MPs are totally out of touch and never in our history has the populous been treated with such disdain, never have the wishes of the people been so poorly represented (or more effectively misrepresented) by Parliament.
    They are there to rule FOR us – not to rule us, and that is where we are currently.
    They must be brought in line and kept in line, and the expenses fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg. This country has become a joke.

  • PETER HESKETH

    AT LAST SOMEONE [TPA] IS SHINING THE LIGHT ON GREED AND CORRUPTION IN OUR PARLIAMENT. BUT, AS A HEALTHY CYNIC, WILL IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?
    I AGREE BROADLY WITH THE PROPOSALS. SPECIFICALLY WIVES COULD BE PAID AS PA’S.
    MP’s SHOULD LITERALLY SIGN FOR EXPENSES AS WHOLY-NECESSARILLY-AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES. INLAND REVENUE SHOULD RAISE THEIR PROFILE IN PARLIAMENT.
    TPA NOW NEEDS TO COORDINATE ITS ACTIVITIES WITH THE SERIOUS PRESS AND ON THIS OCCASION WITH THE ‘RED TOPS’ WHO ARE ALSO NOT WELL PLEASED WITH THE ANTICS OF OUR MP’s. WHEN A FAMILY IS ATTACKED, AND BY ‘THE ENEMY WITHIN NO LESS’ IT I8 TIME FOR ALL TO COME TO THE AID OF THE COUNTRY.
    ALL COMMENTS PLEASE TO SPEAKER AND PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER WITH A POLITE BUT FIRM REMINDER. YOU SERVE US-WE DO NOT SERVE YOU… A NAIVE COMMENT..BUT THE WORM IS TURNING AND FAST. IF THERE IS NO MAJOR CHANGE WITHIN 5 YEARS I PREDICT CIVIL DISSOBEDIANCE IF NOT WAR.

  • Alex ohns

    MPs should be treated like the forces (Q.11, i.e. the same conditions when working away from home; that means basic, not feathering their nest.

  • mike ilett

    carry on the good work TPA, i have attended your lectures and you just hammer home fact after fact after fact, these need to be made known to all in britain, ( and the rest of the world, as a lot of the problems are the work of the dreaded EUROPEAN UNION )
    we muststand up and say “NO”

  • Ken

    Implement the Kelly report in its entirety.
    Nothing less will do. Although,I am not convinced that it goes far enough.
    Less government will be better, so reduce parliament by 50%. Proportional representation would be even better. And no! MPs should not be paid significantly more. It’s high time that they lived in the real world of the common people. But I can only dream on that one.

  • Chris Heatley

    We need a transparant system as seen in other business areas appertaining to employees – which is what MPs are. We do not need further tweaking of a corrupt system. The proposals go nowhere near far enough – anyone else would be facing prosecution. Until MPs lose their immunity there is no point in discussion.

  • robin winston-smythe

    MP’S,MEPS ,Local government employees should fund their own pensions.My theory if gordon brown did not raid company pensions,the tories under george osborne would?holds true
    As 80%of uk law,legislation,directives,emanate from brussels,they do not deserve the 65,000#and office expenses they get now!
    they do not scrutinise laws such, first reading,
    second reading,third reading,committee stage,report stage, lords, royal assent
    does not seem to be used ever.
    LAWS are draconia,like civil contingency,or introduced with no thought,masterminded by spin this czar,that czar,eg lord adonis was useless as ”snow czar”
    snow business like show business

  • John Draper

    If this Government was a private company, the Fraud Squad would have rounded them up, and “outraged” judges would have awarded them bancruptcy notices, and incarceration for tax evading.
    Ombudsmen should be put into place to deal completely independently with such important matters. After all ,it is our monies that they are squandering in such a cavalier manner.

  • Scottie

    Mp’s are at the end of the day just employees
    and should be paid a fair days wage for a
    full days work forget attendance allowance
    their actual contribution is shrouded in mystery. how many other positions do they hold they should be declared and their earnings
    A salary of £50,000 would be adequate and let them work for the rest. related expenses to be paid on proof of receipt, no mortgage interest allowance
    They are all on the gravy train but these days are at an end the general public are watching.
    My pension went up by £2 appx my pcs came down by £2 net result ZERO increase
    yet MP’s can milk the system for thousand of pounds
    Time the disrecpect of MP’s levied on the general public was stopped.

  • mikidiki

    To praise Sir C. Kelly for his recommendations is absolute nonsense. His inquiry has cost something around £1,000,000 and he has ‘earned’ was it £200,000+ for a few months ‘work’. He, himself, is one of the self same Establishment he is purporting to discipline. Many of his proposals are probably illegal and retrospective penalties are never justifiable. Staff at the Commons who advised on, and agreed, the inflated expenses claims, tax evasion and flipping should be disciplined and probably prosecuted. In a perverse way he has attacked the wrong people, the MPs, whilst ignoring the incompetent shysters in the Fees Office, without whom the MPs could not have cheated.
    The number of MPs should be reduced, the salaries of the remainder increased and thus the incentive to fabricate excuses for additional income would be removed.

  • David Britten

    I had to disagree with the TPA recommended answer to question 11. MPs should not be protected from the consequences of political decisions that result in increases in council and other taxes that the general public have to pay. Being obliged to pay these costs themselves may make MPs a little more sensitive to the difficulties of those outside the Westminster village.

  • Irene

    I agree with most of this, but I believe as far as accommodation is concerned we should follow the Swedish system where state owned apartments are provided in London for out of town MP’s.

  • david burn

    with few exceptions the ‘benefit cheats in westminster disgust me, we must make it our business to make sure that the next election results in most of them signing on the next day, and as fiddling is serious misconduct we can stop any severence pay………

  • vasant

    You have done good job and keep it up. However broad reform should be carried out of both the housese,EU and various devolved assemblies in UK. Too many MPs, MEPs, MLAs on public payroll and holding double jobs.In Northern Ireland we are 5 years or so behind in gettting the legislation introduced.

  • David Hankey

    We all know it is hightime that MPs Expenses and Allowances were given a complete overhaul. At the end of the day it is our hard earned cash, via taxation, that has given them the lifestyle they have come accustommed to and so deplorably mis-used.
    Draconian measures need to be implemented and I would go as far as to say that ANY MP of ANY political party that has been made to repay ANY amount should be FORECED to stand down before the next General Election.
    My own MP has repaid for gardening services but what was he thinking that he thought he could get away with it. This is minor in comparison to what others have been founding wanting on.
    The current swathe of MPs in Parliament have undermined public trust and the meaning of the word HONOURABLE.
    There are hundreds of others who no doubt can do an equally good if not better job.. Time for change is ripe and long overdue

  • Charles Kettleborough

    I agree with the 18 points but not giving them £150K, by all means give them free and secure London accomodation in one unit and run it simply on a hotel type basis where they have to check in/out.

  • Gordon Scott

    I agree in principle with all 18 points, but I think the restriction re the employment of family should be extended to include friends as well. I know there is an argument which states family members are reliable etc etc BUT this has been so abused by MP’s that the detriments outweigh the benefits.

  • Phil Dinsdale

    I agree with everything. MPs have shown themselves to be incompetent, self serving, shameless and unrepresentative of the people who elect them.
    The tax payer should not fund 2nd houses for any MP, unless that house is returned to the tax payer when the MP leaves office.
    MPs found guilty of fraud should be prosecuted and the ones who decide ‘not to stand’ at the next election after being found to be fraudulent should be sacked, not have the option to resign.

  • A. Briscoe

    I agree wholeheartedly.
    I would like to have seen all the MPs who seriously fiddled their expenses sacked with loss of all salaries, pensions, resettlement grants, etc. (When I was in the Navy, anyone guilty of a serious misdemeanour might be dismissed with immediate loss of all pay and pension.) They should also be banned from any future employment in public service.

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.co.uk Patsy Sergeant

    I would agree with all your recommendations.
    On Question 8, I would emphasise even more strongly the need for ‘transparency’, as this might help to compensate for the lack of honesty from some MP’s who might differ in their consideration of what is ‘honest’, or what to be honest about. After all not everybody has the same standards of honesty, and that applies to MP’s – and PM’s as well!!

  • Terence Griffin

    Many years ago under a Labour Government MP’s were classed as public (Civil) servants.
    Within the context of the TPA’s stance on the expenses issues MP’s should be treated as no different to any other civil servant.
    There is nothing special about any MP whose only qualification has been to convince his/her (her/his) local Party machine that he/she (she/he) is best qualified to carry the Party flag in Parliament.
    The grade/status of an MP most of whom function only as lobby fodder should not be higher than senior clerical or at the most junior executive.