MPs’ expenses – the other side of the story

By Ed Mayne

The issue of MPs’ expenses has resurfaced in the last few weeks with a series of damaging allegations appearing in the press. Very few MPs have engaged in serious public debate about this issue. So if they won’t put the other side of the story, I’ll have a go. This is not an attempt to defend the current system. It definitely needs changing. But there are some facts that need to be clarified.

For a start there’s the staffing allowance, and I declare at this point that I am an employee of an MEP and an intern for an MP.

MPs could not survive without their staff. They assist MPs in serving their constituents and provide valuable help to large numbers of people. MPs receive hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls every week, ranging from policy queries to people seeking help on a wide range of issues, from housing, to the NHS, to immigration problems, to miscarriages of justice and much more besides.

Many people don’t realise it, but MPs spend many hours in Parliamentary debates, committees, and meetings with constituents. There are simply not enough hours in a day for MPs to serve as both legislators and an extension of the Citizens Advice Bureau, although this aspect of their work is the one that many constituents increasingly expect from their MPs and value most. They need to employ staff to assist with the correspondence and administrative tasks this entails.

Believe me, it’s no gravy train for the staffers! Staff often receive comparatively low pay, in the context of London wages, and work far outside their contracted hours. Interns sometimes work for nothing or just expenses.

Secondly, there are the communication and office allowances. These fund everything from computers and printers, to pens, paper and envelopes. It’s fair to say that MPs could not work without these! Most MPs use these allowances to contact their constituents, a crucial part of their remit, whether it’s replying to letters, sending out newsletters or funding websites. Some use these to staff constituency offices, making MPs accessible to their electorate when they are at work in Westminster.

Then, there’s the second home allowance, by far the most controversial of those available. It’s generally agreed that MPs who live a long way from London should have access to some sort of accommodation near Westminster. An employee of any company would receive reimbursement for work related travel and accommodation, why should MPs be different?

The House of Commons often sits late into the night, making long distance commuting virtually impossible. So many MPs choose a second home over a hotel. Surely they can’t have a second home with nothing in it? This was the origin of the “John Lewis list”, some sort of guideline for what’s acceptable and what isn’t with regard to publicly funded second home furniture.

Practically every allowance has been abused by a handful of MPs. This tarnishes the good names of the vast majority of MPs who work long hours, serve their constituents well and play by the rules, and the spirit of the rules.

So what’s to be done? Simple. Stop treating staff, computers, printers, pens, paper, envelopes, stamps and the like as expenses. Every MP should have the same number of each. Any other office in the country would have these work tools provided by their employer. The House of Commons should be the same.

The very term “expenses” is misleading. It conjures up images of food bills, drinks and travel. So when the media reports that the average MP claims £144,000 a year in expenses, it implies that MPs are living a lifestyle that would put Sir Fred Goodwin to shame. In reality, as explained above, a great deal of that money is spent on the very things that allow MPs to do their jobs. A new name for these “expenses” should be found.

Admittedly, MPs don’t do themselves any favours by employing family members in their offices. While there are many wives, husbands, sons, daughters and other relatives who do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, with the added advantage of an intimate knowledge of the MP’s constituency, the public perception is that it’s nepotism. And this perception can’t be ignored.

With regard to the second home allowance, Gordon Brown’s suggestion of replacing this with a flat rate attendance allowance seems reasonable enough. The average journey to work in the UK is roughly an hour. So anyone within this distance of Parliament should be denied a publicly funded allowance. They should commute like the rest of us.

Eric Pickles complains about late House of Commons finishes. There’s a simple solution to this. Make the House of Commons sit in normal working hours! On most days the main chamber starts sitting at 2.30pm, except on Wednesdays when it starts at a sleep busting 11.30am. On some Mondays and Thursdays the house doesn’t sit at all!

If MPs started earlier, spreading their work over 4 days every week, Monday to Thursday, in a longer session, they could get home to their families at ordinary times and still spend Friday doing constituency business. The current session of Parliament is the shortest for 30 years. So MPs have themselves to blame for this dilemma.

With regard to Laurie Penny’s claim that MPs should be paid the average UK salary, I think this is plain wrong. MPs work harder, longer and under much greater public and media scrutiny than any job in the private sector – and the public sector too for that matter. That’s not to mention lack of job security. An MP can be out of a job in just 4 years if the electorate says so. And not every ex-MP gets the lucrative directorship offer!

Anyone who goes into politics for financial gain is morally bankrupt. But I think it’s fair to say that a lot of bright young people who might consider running for the House of Commons are put off by the comparatively low salary and the lack of reward for the life-changing intrusion of privacy being an MP involves – something I’m sure Jacqui Smith has a lot to say about! And that’s not to mention the implications for your family. Children of Government Ministers are hardly going to have a normal childhood are they?

I’m not saying politicians should be paid the same as bankers. Public service should retain a degree of virtue and self-sacrifice. But they should at least get paid the same as some of the more high ranking civil servants. And if the public thinks it’s fairer to take this, and regulation of all other allowances, out of the hands of MPs and make it the remit of an independent regulator, so be it.

Reform is long overdue. Loopholes and abuses should be ironed out. Claiming money without receipts should stop. A public debate should begin about how a well informed democracy should be funded in the 21st century. But I hope this article has helped put forward the case that we would all suffer if democracy was done on the cheap.

Disclaimer: This article represents my own opinions and not those of my employers. It was written in my own free time. The British taxpayer has in no way subsidised this article!