I was doing a fortnight’s military training on Salisbury Plain when the row over MP’s expenses broke and I was quite chastened by the strength of feeling that many soldiers expressed. I have written here before that I detect dismay with Parliament because it has given up powers that voters entrusted to it, so much so, that we are now governed by people we do not elect and cannot remove. Now, add to this the perception that MP’s are ripping off the taxpayer by milking a corrupt system of allowances, and the result is fury amongst voters, many of whom are themselves struggling to make ends meet.
I believe that thorough reform of the House of Commons is long overdue. It is vital that it restores its ability to hold the Government to account and to make our laws. Yet this will never be achieved unless MPs first gain the respect and authority that it will require, and that can only be done by dispelling the impression of sleaze and extravagance.
Pay and Pension
MPs get £60,000 per year and can retire at 65 on two thirds of their final salary (given sufficient years service). It is a contributory scheme: MP’s pay 10% of their income into the fund. It is unlike civil service pensions which are non-contributory, unfunded, and dependent entirely on taxpayers, nevertheless, one of the greatest challenges facing the nation is the pension apartheid. Private sector pensions are under enormous pressure and many employers have closed final salary schemes. At the same time, the public sector continues to have very generous pensions which are an enormous charge on current and future taxpayers. Parliament must deal with this problem, but I cannot believe that we will ever have the moral authority to do so, if MPs continue to enjoy such a generous scheme: it must be reformed.
Additional Costs Allowance
MPs get up to £23,000 per year to meet the extra costs of living in London away from their constituency home. This is to all extents and purposes an addition to income and it would be more transparent so say we pay MPs £83,000 per year (£60,000 salary + £23,000 ACA) because the rules are so broad as to how one may spend it, that it is to all extent and purposes, indistinguishable from income: you can spend it on food; hotel bills; rent; mortgage interest; furnishings; home improvements; cleaning and gardening; utility bills; council tax; anything associated with running a home.
Every Monday I share the train with many other constituents going up to London who will also not return until the end of the week. They will have to pay for their stay out of their income but I have a tax free allowance. So, let us be honest, and tax the allowance as the income that it so obviously is.
Staff Allowance
This year I have £90,500 for staff although I budget to spend only £70,000. I don’t come anywhere near the cash: the staff are paid directly by Parliament on proper legal contracts and according to a published pay scale. I employ a full time secretary in London and temporary cover for her holidays etc. I also employ a part time executive secretary in the New Forest to handle budgets, website, email, and non constituent correspondence. In addition I pay agency fees totalling £6000 to research organisations for parliamentary briefings and research. The rub is that the part time executive secretary is my wife on a salary of £10,000. In the past this was not a problem. It was commonplace because the relationship suited the abnormal hours. The stench of the Conway affair, however, may have polluted the system to such an extent that it might be appropriate now to consider banning the employment of relatives altogether.
Communications Allowance
A new allowance of £10,000 annually, it allows MPs to send you glossy unsolicited mail telling you what a wonderful job they are doing. It is an abuse and should be abolished.
Incidental Expenses Allowance
About £20,000 annually to cover the non staff costs of running your office. I aim to spend less than half this sum so my prejudice is that the allowance could be halved. By far the largest item in my budget is the £5,200 I pay for my office in the constituency. Anyone seeing it or entering would assume that it was indeed my office, but in fact, it belongs to the New Forest West Conservative Association and I rent it and a reception service. Is this an abuse because it is a back door way of funding parties with public money? I guard against that accusation by having had the service independently professionally audited.
Transparency and Numbers
The publication of MP’s expenses generated a competitive pressure to minimise them and last year I am glad to say mine were the fourth lowest. We now need to go much further in publishing the detail: tax payers seeing how you actually spend what is their money, will be the most powerful corrective to extravagance. In addition, we must end the nonsense of not having to provide receipts. Finally, do we really need as many as 640 MPs? I think we could get by with far fewer. |
