I’m sure she needed all that porn for business purposes.

But Don, the point is that they voted against changing the second homes system to an overnight allowance system last July.

I have no problem with people trying to derive maximum individual benefit from any system they work under. As Adam Smith pointed out, that’s what people tend to do. Even socialists.

The reason why MPs are copping the flak is because they have refused to vote to change a system that is plainly illogical and unfair and the suspicion is that they won’t vote to change it because they rather like exploiting it.

And it’s hard to believe Jaqui Smith is averse to her husband filling in forms when she insists on claiming 80p for a bath plug!!!!

Don, they’ve had umpteen opportunities to make their case and reform the system before this blew up. My sympathy for too many of them is in short supply. They must remember it is not their money. I have to be uber-scrupulous about expenses, and also feel duty bound to be so, and wouldn’t dream of putting flat-screen TVs, sinks etc down. They got themselves into this pickle (pun intended). It’s a pity for the honest hard-working ones, but they should have been blowing the whistle. After all, honest citizens are positively encouraged to snitch on swindlers, aren’t they?

After all, honest citizens are positively encouraged to snitch on swindlers, aren’t they?

Only the ones claiming unemployment-related benefits – you know, poor people.

#3 There is a difference between MPs and other workers who claim expenses, though. MPs are expected to live in two different places as a condition of their job. So they are going to need basics (a bed, a tv, even bath plugs) in their second home that they wouldn’t otherwise buy. That makes it legitimate for them to claim for such things within strictly agreed limits.

I would much rather MPs’ salaries were closer to the median wage and they claimed for all that kind of stuff than they were higher and it all came out of their salary.

@ tim f. Lots of employees are expected to operate in two (or more), often very far apart locations, so MPs are not at all unique in this. Where they are unique is in the laxity of the ‘rules’ that apply to them. You mention basics, but too much of MPs allowances has gone on luxuries. It’s a crying shame for the honest ones who recognise a duty not to use public monies extravagantly, but they far too many (143) have claimed the full exact maximum in allowances, which is a remarkably generous sum, more than probability would allow: just what are the odds of 143 of them having exactly the same second home costs, to the pound. Oh, silly me, that’s because it’s the absolute maximum they can claim, and an astronomical sum to boot: remember this particular allowance ain’t for staff, stationery or travel, but simply for a second home…

#6 – it’s true that lots of employees (although still a very small minority) are expected to work from two places, but usually eg if they’re working abroad, they are given a furnished flat by their company. It’s my view that the HoC should do something similar.

I agree with you on luxuries, but cf my post in the Eric Pickles thread; I’m worried that the tone of this debate will lead MPs to abolish the second homes allowance and bump up their salary afer the next GE (whoever’s in power). That would be the worst of all worlds (except for MPs), but it is a rational solution if MPs want to sidestep the way the debate on this is currently being conducted. If we want a better solution we are going to have to restrain ourselves and campaign in a structured way rather than fuelling a self-righteous and hypocritical mob of journalists to vent forth.

@7. I’d agree with you. What would be wrong with well-furnished (but not piss-taking) serviced flats/ apartment block for those who need a London base? This current laxity (Harry Cohen is brazenly honest about his dishonesty…) does not reflect at al well on the occupants of the HoC, but is entirely of their collective making.

Well I don’t have any sympathy for MP’s. They have brought all this on themselves. And I make no distinction between Labour or Tory, (have you seen the Tory expenses in the Welsh assembly? They like flat screen plasma TV’s to our Tories) they are equally to blame. Is it any wonder there is a list the length of the M1 to become an MP. It is a nice cushy number for middle class, middle aged people who have a few quid behind them. Salary, expenses, second homes, gold plated pension, and for most of the seats, a job for life. Oh , and while they are supposed to be doing the ‘peoples business’ they can bunk off and earn a few hundred thousand making speeches on the after dinner circuit or taking a few consultancies to ask a few lame questions.

Pay them a salary, and petrol allowance, , and enough to run their office and then tell them to get on with it. And if it was left to me, I would have term limits so that they have a maximum of 20 years.

When I required a temporary second home to carry out my job, the company contribution was deducted from my relocation allowance, the rest of which went on stamp duty. In fact I was then taxed on the stamp duty as a benefit in kind.

WTF

pagar> on the face of it, that seems a bit strange – no specific tax advice, and there may be special circumstance etc. etc. but there’s a specific exemption for the first £8k of removal benefits, which includes [1] stamp duty and SDLT.

[1] s277(3)(e) ITEPA 2003, fact fans!

@ Preachy Preach (11). You seem well informed on the allowances claimable by mere mortals. Could you give some indicator of how they compare with the ‘rules’ under which MPs operate?

It’s not so much that you can’t pay people’s expenses, more that if you fall out the scope certain statutory exemptions[1], you’re thrown onto having to justify them as being wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of your employment. If not, they get taxed (very broadly) on the cash-equivalent value.

The classic example is overseas secondments – if the firm rents a flat for you for the duration of your stay, and pays for flights over at the beginnning and end of your employment, that should be OK. Where you typically get into grey areas are things like flights home during the secondment, and any extra costs incurred in bringing family members over with you (e.g. their flight costs, and if you need to get significantly larger accommodation than just you would require…)

The other nig risk areas are things like late-night taxis, entertaining costs and other dual purpose expenses. They’re low-hanging fruit for HMRC to attack, given the usual care and attention to which people make and approve expense claims; which is why I occasionally have sleepless nights…

[1] whose value has been eroded a lot over the years by inflation – taking an not-that-extreme example, a daily exemption worth 15p for luncheon vouchers may have been some use in the 60s…

Of course, on a practical basis, this is mainly a headache for the finance team, as most reasonably-sized businesses have PAYE settlement agreements in place to pick up such grey areas and pay the tax and NI on your behalf. (Doing this is in itself a taxable benefit, which makes it a rather expensive way of going about things…)

All this over expenses is because there is a disconnect between what MPs think they are worth, and what they are paid. £65k might seem a helluva lot to most people, but it is (or was, lets see how salaries stand up to the current mess) entry-level stuff for big City jobs. Accordingly MPs have been used to treating allowances (and remember that’s what they’re called, not expenses) as an top-up to salary. Look at the money getting paid to civil servants and quangocrats as a parallel. These fellas are on more than the PM – three times as much as a backbencher.

There are three ways to deal with this. We could raise MPs salaries to, say roughly the average claimed at present (about £120k?) and then abolish all forms of allowance, introducing the same sort of business expenses as currently operate in business. Alternatively, we could abolish allowances and introduce expenses as above, but make MPs make do with £65k a year. Or we could leave the allowance system as it is, police it better and hope that MPs realise that they’re taking the mickey.

The first option is probably the most sensible, which is why it is the least likely to happen. The second would be the most popular with the public, and the least popular with MPs, so that probably won’t happen either. So we’re stuck with hoping that everyone plays fair and the problem goes away.

I’m assuming that the attendance record of MPs with a second home so close to Westminster is 100%?

I have said this elsewhere but I am saying it again anyway .I feel the problem is not the petty corruption a la Smith and ‘Onan the Barbarian’, but the unimportance of the MPs . I think we need urgent electoral reform to establish a new relationship between the public and their representatives. Why, after all pay powerless lobby fodder anything at all.Sussex MPs get through £300,000 in claims but what do any of them do Norman Baker has the time to write stupid books for which he gets £50,000 from the Daily Mail ,.I do not have that sort of spare time and I commute from around the corner ?
This is especially the case when, for example over Lisbon, the one job they are supposed to do , represent our views , they utterly fail to carry out . Same with crime immigration etc.

I suggest ….
Open Primaries on safe seats
2 Stage elections with the last two standing contesting all votes
HOP timetables to actually debate European legislation currently kept quiet
Secret HOP ballots on Select Committee membership and wherever possible ( to re-empower the Commons )
Action On Boundary reform with the over representation of Inner Cities dealt with.
A halving of the MP to bod ratio in devolved countries
A third less MPs over all
A bonfire of pointless layers of authority
I would also recommend PR elections for half the House of Lords at the same time to stop tactical voting and beef up the second chamber

Then our MP`s would actually be our representatives and they would have power. Then we would not mind paying them properly . At the moment they are either doing nothing or conspiring to deny tax payers what they have instructed time to do time and time again and people rightly resent a penny wasted on them. CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW BAD IT WOULD BE under PR

Proper MPs Proper Money

Believe me

Haven’t MPs collectively claimed over £92 million in, aherm, expenses (this year).

I imagine that must leave quite a lot of scope for oversights, such as the odd porn subscription.

Poor luvs …………..

#15 why is the first option the best? Surely it’s the worst – meaning they get more money than now but without the transparency which was recently introduced and has at least brought all this to light?

`I think we have to attract these wonderful MPs or, with their talent, they might move to enormously well paid jobs. You do realise they only work as MPs out of a dedication, selflessly, to serve the public. I don’t know what most of them would do if they hadn’t blagged their way into parliament; non contributory pension; hopes of shuffling off to the House of Lords; and occasionally becoming speaker like dear old Mick who most of the time seems to have no idea what is going on around him.

There are exceptions and the MP I admire is Dennis Skinner. Not only utterly honest but dedicated, intelligent and witty. I still remember that ctack he made when Thatcher the Milk Snatcher was shuffling her papers to find the number of the unemployed.

“Give it to the nearest million,” shouted Dennis.

Don’s absolutely right, the ACA is complicated.

So why don’t MPs change it?

Not all MPs are the same. Not all of them take the piss.

But some of them do and we the people are fed up with them not only taking the piss but getting away with it.

(Jebus, some of them don’t read what they’re supposed to vote on. And they usually vote aye. This isn’t doing the country any favours.)

When MPs agreed to the Freedom of Information Act nine years ago, perhaps they might have considered their own exposure. Fortunately for us, they did not. The FoI Commissioner has made it clear (since 2006?) that MP’s expenses and allowances are open for judgement by press and public. Consequently, a few MPs have been caught with their trousers down. So MPs have had a few years to work out that their expenses/allowances will be scrutinised and to ensure that claims are accurate and reasonable. That diligence applies to MPs and those who make claims on their behalf. Thus I have no sympathy for Richard Timney or Jacqui Smith.

MPs are paid a pitance in comparison to City jobs – which just goes to show what a bunch of overpaid cunts there are in the City.

MPs used to get paid nothing yet high quality parliamentarians like Gladstone existed.

And you had to be rich to do the job. Let’s not go back to those days. Let’s give MPs the median salary and enough expenses that the extra things they have to do as part of their job (have two homes, travel between constituency and Westminster regularly, maintain an office, employ staff, communicate with constituents) are separate from that salary.

If MPs really do work the 70 hours a week they claim, then paying them the median wage pro rata (so about 45k) seems reasonable.

Provided they put in timesheets every week

Trusting this one isn’t an early April Fool, MPs need to be filling in exactly the same forms as the rest of us and providing the same information – plus complete disclosure because of their posiion.

That is the one sure fire way to a) hold them to account, and b) obtain a streamlined Inland Revenue.

On the money side, 65 (now 66 and a bit) k is more than generous. Last year the basic salary alone – out of which the rest of us have to buy a lot of stuff they get given – put MPs in the top 6-7% of the population. Given what has happened to everyone else, that may now be in the top 5%.

If the money paid to Quangocrats (or GPs as a result of Patricia Hewitt’s negotiating idiocy) is a problem, then MPs are the one group in the country in a position to correct it. I rather suspect that the Quangocracy is stuffed with former politicians and their friends, so that won’t happen.

And we should repeatedly ask them the spurious “ID Card” question: if you have nothing to hide, why are you so dedicated to hiding it?

One difficult question to address will be recovery of monies obtained by the minority of Parliamentarians who have engaged in serious long term expenses fiddles, or the long term cost of Parliamentary pensions.

On allowances, I think we are going to end up with a seriously “hair shirt” system in 5 years time, once the public catch up with just how much money and how many services we are going to lose over the next 25 years to dig ourselves out of the current public finance hole – never mind paying for the unfunded public sector / private sector pensions or the costs to individuals of doing the not-yet-done-because-it-was-politically-too-difficult reform to public sector pensions.

Hundreds of billions will have to come from somewhere, and the doubling of VAT in 1981 (?) or VAT on energy on 199x is going to seem like a picnic.

Matt