MPs and expenses

SHOULD MPs be working full-time on legislative and constituency duties, or should they spend a disproportionate amount on ensuring that their expense claims meet strict new criteria?

This conundrum comes as new report reveals that the new payment regime is too bureaucratic and, in many cases, sees MPs subsidising some costs out of their own pocket because the claims process is too convoluted and does not justify the time involved.

It is an understandable criticism but the new system – in spite of its imperfections – has taken the sting out of the expenses scandal, with 99.7 per cent of claims now said to be within the rules and the few rejections attributed to administrative errors rather than impropriety.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

These standards need to be maintained if public confidence is to be restored, and any relaxation of the rules is likely to alienate those voters who still do not trust their MP – even though the House of Commons has been purged of the worst culprits.

Yet this will not happen until there is a fundamental review about how politics is funded in this country, the influence of large donors and whether MPs do, in fact, have a salary commensurate with their workload and the public’s expectations.

A reason why the expenses system was so abused was to compensate MPs for their basic salary failing to keep pace with inflation over the past two decades. Now, at a time when the main parties want the Commons to become more representative of society, there is a danger that only the rich will pursue a political career because they are in a position to subsidise their public service with private family wealth.

As such, today’s report should be the precursor of a mature discussion about the role of MPs, their entitlement to expenses and whether their support staff and political researchers should be funded by the taxpayer or their respective party.

Related topics: