As I sit in a cafe in Paris* with my newspaper (actually a copy of the Spectator), my little coffee and my croissant, the Expenses row seems a million miles away – especially as I’m reading last week’s issue, in which the story did not feature!
I’m hugely disappointed with those MPs of all parties who have clearly submitted claims without any thought or care for the reason that the expense system exists in the first place. Many of the claims reported in the Telegraph in recent weeks are outrageous (to say the least).
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable that MPs should be entitled to claim reimbursement in relation to expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out their job. I include in this some form of support for those MPs who have to live in two locations. But…..how can clearing the moat be necessary for performing the job of an MP? A massage chair? An £8,000 TV? At the other end of the scale, some of the items claimed for were very minor (the Telegraph reports a chocolate Santa for 59p for example) which suggests either that the MPs concerned were very, very miserly, or that they submitted receipts covering all manner of expenditure without any regard for those items that were justifiable and those that were not.
Like most people, I’ve felt angry and disappointed about some of the claims. Regardless whether you feel that MPs are paid too much or too little, or whether you think they should set aside their own personal comfort and ‘sacrifice’ to be an MP or whether you think they are entitled to second home and associated expenses, much of what has been claimed was plainly wrong. I don’t care whether the claims were strictly within the rules – it is wrong to claim for something that is not necessary for you to do your job.
As constituents, most of us expect our MPs to have homes in or near their constituencies, so that they can regularly attend local events and meetings and so that they are aware of issues affecting the local population. However, as their ‘day job’ is in Westminster those who live outside greater London need some kind of overnight accommodation – but it doesn’t have to be luxurious and the MP shouldn’t profit from it. Functional ought to be sufficient. How could anyone think that the taxpayer should fund an £8,000 plasma TV when a decent LCD model costing no more than £200 would be perfectly sufficient? It’s just a complete loss of reasonableness and proportionality.
One response to this problem might be to say that MPs shouldn’t expect to have a home in their constituency – but that would further reduce the link between MP and constituents and make them seem further out of touch than the public already assumes them to be. Perhaps the answer might be to house them in hotels, but I wonder if this would be more cost effective, long-term, than rented accommodation? Whatever the new reformed system is, it should be recognisably similar to the kinds of solutions used by businesses in providing for employees who work away from home. For example, when I had to visit a different office last year for work, I was put up in a hotel (one night trip), but when my brother had to work on a project away from home for six months, his employer rented a flat for him and his colleagues.
It will be interesting to see what happens and, scanning the headlines, I can see that things have already moved on whilst I have been away….let’s hope that the new era will bring a transparent politics and enable politicians to start rebuilding respect.
* I was in a cafe in Paris when I wrote this…now I am back in London.
Filed under: National Politics | Tagged: expenses;
