MPs WANT MORE MONEY

Plans to clean up Parliament are being hijacked by MPs intent on turning the committee investigating their expenses into a vehicle for special pleading. After a summer of scandals that have shaken faith in the political process, Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life invited the public and politicians to set out their views before a report that is expected to propose far-reaching reforms in October. This has resulted in the inquiry being bombarded by MPs’ complaints about their miserable lifestyles, media intrusion, the inadequacy of existing allowances, along with repeated demands for a hefty pay rise.

David Cameron has felt the need to distance himself in the past fortnight from Alan Duncan, his Shadow Cabinet colleague, who said that MPs were “living on rations” and Tory grandees such as Sir Patrick Cormack and Douglas Hogg, who have called for backbench salaries to be raised from £65,000 a year to a six-figure sum. A detailed analysis of hundreds of submissions shows that such views are far from exceptional, particularly among Conservative MPs who believe that they would be earning far more if they had never entered politics.

Andrew Robathan, the Tory deputy Chief Whip, wrote to the committee saying that removing existing allowances and expenses should mean that MPs received a “quid pro quo with the salary being raised significantly”. The MP for Blaby pointed out that, if he had not left the Army, “I would almost certainly have become at least a Lieutenant-Colonel who is paid more than an MP and may also receive boarding school allowance, subsidised quarters and other perks”. He suggested that a salary of between £105,000 and £110,000 a year was needed “to attract people of quality, ability, intelligence and experience into Parliament”.

Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for North Essex, said, “There can be no avoiding that any substantial change in financial support for MPs’ living arrangements will have to be reflected in a review of MPs’ overall remuneration.” Roger Gale and his wife, Suzy, both wrote letters detailing the financial sacrifices that they had made when he became an MP, including taking a two-thirds cut in pay and losing more than £500,000 by selling a house in London. At the same time, his parliamentary salary had fallen compared with similar professions.

The inquiry is considering whether MPs should be banned from employing family members to avoid accusations of nepotism. But Peter Luff, the Conservative MP for Mid-Worcestershire, has written threatening to quit politics if such a measure is imposed. He wrote, “The ability to employ my wife was central to my decision to become an MP and I would seriously consider leaving the House if I were no longer allowed to do so.”

Margaret Beckett, the former Labour Cabinet minister, also wrote to the committee voicing dismay at the idea of replacing her husband and chief adviser, Leo, with “someone less effective and who will be less devoted to my interests”. She said that this summer’s scandals about MPs’ expenses failed to take into account costs “uniquely associated with political life ... that are not and never will be met from public funds”. David Blunkett is the most senior Labour MP calling for a pay rise. He said, “The most logical change would be to bite the bullet and pay MPs the kind of salary they would expect to be paid in equivalent jobs.”

Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, suggested that MPs outside London should be paid £95,000 a year. He wrote, “We do not need expenses, we need a decent salary." Others, such as Ronnie Campbell, Eric Illsley and Richard Burden, suggested that MPs had become overdependent on expenses because the Government had blocked pay rises for MPs. Helen Goodman, a junior work and pensions minister, wrote to the inquiry saying that selflessness in public life should not mean “sacrificing the interests of our children and families”.

She claimed that the take-home salary of a backbencher was £38,000, with many struggling to pay legitimate travel and childcare costs not provided under the existing allowances scheme. She wrote, “There seems a widespread and confused view that MPs should be punished and their lives made as uncomfortable as possible. We want a reasonable system, where real costs are reimbursed and proper procedures followed.” Although most MPs’ submissions recognise the depth of public anger over parliamentary expenses, several vented frustrations at not getting enough.

David Kawczynski, the Tory MP for Shrewsbury & Atcham, said, “I am sure I am not the only MP who has found, taking into account the number of interns working on a voluntary basis, the number of computers supplied through Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology are not sufficient.” Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for West Cornwall, wrote to the inquiry complaining of unfair press reporting, which had led to his family being “intimidated by the media, snooped upon and my daughter stalked”. He demanded assurances that parliamentary authorities holding confidential data on MPs would be competent to protect privacy. (Source: Times Online, Aug/09)

MPs were on course for a massive pay hike in return for accepting strict curbs on expenses. Many were pressing for a rise of up to £40,000 a year to take their annual salaries to around £100,000 after details of a crackdown on the discredited Parliamentary allowance system were unveiled. And Westminster sleaze watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly, who published his blueprint for stamping out “deplorable” expenses abuses, signalled that his overhaul cleared the way for a salary increase.

A clamour for a pay hike began after Sir Christopher announced his plans for overhauling MPs’ taxpayer-funded expenses. Sir Christopher said, “Our proposals are reasonable and fair and bring Westminster into line with other walks of life and other legislatures.” He called for an end to MPs’ enrichment by acquiring property portfolios at the taxpayers’ expense or dodging tax through “flipping” the property designated as their second home.

He said, “They should not expect to acquire a valuable asset at the public’s expense.” Sir Christopher said his proposals will reduce the cost of the Westminster allowances system, which costs taxpayers around £94million a year. He estimated £2.7million a year will be saved from the accommodation budget, a further £5million from scrapping MPs’ payoffs and an extra £2million from abolishing a controversial “communications allowance” for sending information to constituents.

But Sir Christopher also made clear he did not oppose MPs being granted a substantial pay rise. He said his review had “cleared away the undergrowth” of the expenses system to allow Whitehall chiefs to now address the issue of MPs’ pay. Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell led the calls for more pay for MPs, saying many felt “victimised” by the expenses reform plans. He claimed MPs had not had a “proper” pay increase since 1976, and had been encouraged to claim more cash in expenses instead.

Senior MPs have long been pressing for an annual salary of at least £100,000, far above the current level of £64,766. And several called for a substantial pay rise in submissions sent to Sir Christoper’s inquiry into the Westminster expenses systems. Tory backbenchers Douglas Hogg, who claimed the cost of cleaning his moat on his expenses, and Sir Patrick Cormack called for the MPs salary to be doubled in letters to the inquiry.

But campaigners against Westminster waste were outraged about the prospect of a hike in MPs’ pay. Matthew Elliott, chief executive at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said, “There is no way MPs should receive a pay rise, it would make them look more out of touch and greedier than ever.” Gordon Brown MPs that the Government accepted Sir Christopher’s proposals “in full”, and Tory leader David Cameron also backed them.

But MPs criticised Sir Christopher’s report and called for some proposals to be dumped and a revolt was growing among the wives and husbands of MPs who face losing their jobs under Sir Christopher’s crackdown on the employment of relatives. A group of MPs’ spouses working at the Commons, led by Tory MP Roger Gale’s wife Suzy, called for the proposed employment restriction to be scrapped. (Source: Daily Express, Nov/09)