TPA submits evidence to the MPs' expenses inquiry

Today, we submitted our evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life's investigation into MPs' expenses. The inquiry is pretty wide-ranging, with a number of questions to be answered on a wide variety of topics, so it's enabled us to set out a pretty comprehensive manifesto for how best to reform the system.

Here is the summary section of the submission:

•  Reform of the House of Commons expenses system must be comprehensive. Public anger
  demands reforms which will not only lower the overall cost, but which will also remove any
  potential for frivolous, sometimes even fraudulent claims. Crucially, as well as financial
  considerations all reforms must consider the paramount need to restore the public’s faith in
  Parliament.
• The system must be based on expenses – i.e. the reimbursement only of actual outgoings
  essential to Parliamentary work – rather than allowances. The term allowance suggests the
  handing over of a sum of money regardless of the actual cost incurred, which is unacceptable.
  All expenses must be demonstrably necessary to the carrying out of Parliamentary duties; they
  must not in any way be able to finance ‘lifestyle’ choices.
• There must be no opportunity for financial gain through expenses. For instance MPs should not
  be able to make capital gain on properties they obtain with assistance from the taxpayer; in the
  future accommodation expenses must be restricted to rent or the upkeep of taxpayer owned
  homes. From our own research we have identified the Olympic Village as an ideal place for
  housing MPs.
• All claims must be backed up with proper receipts; no expenses should be reimbursed unless a
  valid receipt or invoice can be produced, regardless of how small the sum might be. All legal
  statutes governing the use of expenses must be fully applicable to MPs. Similarly, MPs must be
  subject to the same taxes as everyone else; MPs must be subject to the rules which they
  impose.
• Transparency must be at the heart of any future system, not just to ensure that MPs abide by
  the rules in future, but also to allay the concerns of the public. A high degree of openness may
  feel intrusive to MPs, but it is essential if Parliament is ever to regain the trust of the people.
• Transparency must apply to all claims – whether approved or not – and will show complete
  detail. Only specific bank account details should be withheld from the public.
• Nor should such information have to be hunted out through freedom of information requests; all
  expenses information should be accessible at all times to the public, via the internet and
  through constituency offices.
• Reform of the expenses system must not entail a rise in MPs’ pay. On all counts – except the
  bogus comparisons of the SSRB – MPs are very well paid, and certainly paid appropriately to the
  demanding job they carry out. Moreover, the public will not tolerate a rise in basic pay to
  compensate MPs for a loss of expenses; not only would this reward MPs for abusing the
  expense system up till now, but MPs are already paid significantly more than their average
  constituent.

The full document is here. We have also applied to give oral evidence to the inquiry, so expect more sparks to fly!

Comments

[Albert Norval]

Re the MP's expenses. I worked for BT for over 30 years and they had a straightforward scheme, i am now a civil servant and this scheme is almost exactly the same. Overnight stays usually hotel rooms are arranged by an external company (e.g. expotel) and paid centrally staff are paid £5 out of pocket expenses and £21 for evening meals. If you choose to stay with a relative £25 is paid.I can't see how there is a need for an investigation MP's should simply move on to the Civil Service scheme. I would also like to say that if there is a likeleyhood of the introduction of a rent allowance (as with the Scottish Parliament) then safeguards must be in place to stop MP's or family members buying property and then renting it to themselves i.e. having the mortgage paid by the taxpayer.

[Bruce Rushworth]

2nd homes allowances should not be allowable to MPs who have grace and favour accommodation provided....
because they can let out their London homes whilst they have this free grace & favour perk

[Call me Dave]

When are we going to see a criminal prosecution??

Hang on a minute, was that a flying pig..........