MPs' Expenses...
We are seeing a huge furore on the expenses charged to taxpayers by MPs across the board. After the populist focus on the monarchy's costs and (more recently) bankers' remuneration, it was perhaps inevitable that those who made the fuss should expect to become the subject of public scrutiny themselves.MPs who have been exposed claim that they were "following the rules". The rules, however, were written by MPs for MPs - a practice akin to company directors producing their own expense policy without independent review by the board and/or the auditors. No one would tolerate this in the private sector. Some of the claims definitely raise the odd eyebrow - pet food, swimming pool maintenance and, of course, the celebrated porn film claim!
In my view, this is a simple case of "compensation review". We need to re-define our expectations of what we require of our MPs and what it is reasonable to provide in order that they may discharge their duties effectively.
We start with the premise that MPs are employees of their constituencies (the taxpayer) in the same way that executives are employees of their companies. Where is their "office" - in London or in their constituency? My view is the latter, but MPs must also be "out of town" frequently to represent their employer effectively.
In the private sector, if someone has to travel frequently within the UK and/or overseas on company business, the employer meets the cost of being away from home (i.e. accommodation, meals, transport) within strict parameters. The same should hold true for MPs.
What constitutes a "legitimate" expense for an MP? The only way of defining this once and for all is to have an unbiased third party draw up a set of rules based on current private sector practice to fit the modern context. Chlorine for my MP's swimming pool, food for his/her pets and pornographic films are not "legitimate". Travelling up to London and staying there overnight to defend my/the country's interests are.
In the private sector, if my workload is such that I work ridiculous hours and it impacts my health/family life, I have the choice of: staying in a small flat/B&B close to my office from Monday - Friday, moving my whole family closer to my office (with the attendant upheaval this entails) or finding a job with better hours (and possibly less pay) closer to home. These are lifestyle choices that we all make. My employer would not however, be prepared to pay for a "second home" for me except in highly unusual circumstances. Some MPs do not have the choice of where their "office" is if they represent constituencies far from London and therefore need some leeway. Accommodation at taxpayer's expense is not unreasonable here.
Those who choose to serve the public should not be penalised for doing so (nor should their families). If we expect our MPs to be effective, they need a "reasonable" standard of living and of family life. We need to accept that there will perforce be more disruption to their lives and that they need to be compensated. One way forward would be to consider "zones" for MPs so that, the further from London their constituency is, the more travel and/or accommodation they may claim. Any MP living within an hour of London (by train) should not be entitled to a "second home", but to (say) travel expenses between London and their constituency and to hotel accommodation and meals when necessary. The latter should be rigorously scrutinised. Parliament should perhaps consider a "bloc" agreement with local London hotels, or leasing flats for MPs at a fixed rate.
Ministers may need different standards, as I expect the demands on them to be heavier.
Other expenses also need to be reviewed. Again, the only way to do this is through an independent third party who is accustomed to dealing with major corporates. To be sure, some items will need to disappear, and MPs' salaries may need adjustment in order to make them competitive (we want the "right" people in the job after all). However, when all is said and done, MPs need to remember that they are very much accountable to the taxpayer and that the latter is no longer prepared to overlook abuse.
Labels: Financial
posted by William Martin @ 20:16
<< Home