Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 8th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

MPs could get lump sum instead of housing expenses



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2008
By Andrew Woodcock
MPS could seek to avoid future embarrassment over expenses by awarding themselves an automatic lump sum of £23,000 a year to pay for a second home.
It was reported last night that an annual block grant would be one of the key recommendations of a committee chaired by the Speaker, Michael Martin.

This would avoid the need for MPs to submit claims backed by receipts for the costs of running a home away from their constituencies.

A spokeswoman for the House of Commons members estimate committee said the report on the reform of Westminster's allowances had not yet been completed and it was too early to say what it would contain when presented to parliament next month.

There was embarrassment for some MPs when invoices submitted in support of their claims for the additional costs allowance were released last week, after a High Court ruling that they could not be exempted from Freedom of Information requirements.

All MPs' claims are to be released this autumn, raising the prospect of authorities having to produce documentation detailing how MPs spend public money on mortgage payments, utility bills, kitchen appliances and renovations.



The full article contains 199 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 May 2008 12:46 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

,

27/05/2008 01:57:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Proximaking,

Dundee 27/05/2008 07:13:50
On this basis I want MPs to grant private one man band companies like myself tax free and unchecked expenses of one third of turnover. If they won't give me that then why do they think they are entitled to it? If MPs put half as much time and thought into running the country as they do into fiddling their expenses the country might be in a better state. Aren't they supposed to work FOR us and not the other way round? People have to start voting for independents. These party people grew up in a party machine that either came from the boardroom where expenses are fiddled as of right or the trades unions where money is stolen hand over fist from the members for "jaunts" of all sorts that have nothing to do with the union business. I remember a rather famous Dundee trades unionist who was found with around two thousand pounds in the boot of his car, money that, purely coincidentally, had disappeared from a local Labour clubs till a couple of weeks earlier. "Planted" of course but it just shows the mindset at work in Westminster, he fits in very nicely down there among all the other workshy thieves in the night.
3

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 07:31:25
Oh boy, rather than learning and realising they should only be claiming for reasonable items, they invent a new system allowing to keep their noses in the trough without needing to reveal how they're ripping us off...

This better not be implemented.
4

,

27/05/2008 07:38:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Ubi,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 08:01:18
MPs have finally dragged kicking and screaming to a position of reluctant accountability for the expenses they charge to the tax payer. And their first reaction? To propose a new arrangement which removes that accountability at a stroke.

If the people of this country meekly stand and watch this being laughed on them by braying impostors then they deserve all they get.
6

gus1940,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 08:38:01
Full public disclosure of every penny claimed with compulsory provision of receipts.

Any MP found making false claims to be prosecuted with full details of trial made public and if found guilty to be sacked as MP - should result in frequent by-elections.

The above should be the minimum requirements for disclosure. If they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear from full disclosure.

The above should be implemented forthwith along with a tightenibg up on what can be claimed for and restrictions on the amount claimable in each case.

Second homes should not require to be fitted out and equipped like luxury properties. £10K for refitting a kitchen in a second home is certainly not necessary.

For MP's whose main residence is not in their constituency could a similar scheme to clergymen not be adopted whereby a manse or vicarage is provided.

AS far as constituency offices are concerned what is wrong with the government paying the local authority for the provision of accommodation in the nearest council office.

Where an MP has main residence in the constituency and requires a second home in London said properties (1 bedroom flats) should be purchased and retained by the government and all expenditure thereon strictly controlled by the government.

The above would eliminate the obscene capital gains made on second homes paid for by the taxpayer.
7

Paddi,

27/05/2008 08:44:35
do these people not know the meaning of the word shame?
8

frank mcbride,

lusitania 27/05/2008 09:42:39
Could I suggest that MPs, MSPs & MEPs be treated as other "away from home workers".

They should be supplied hotel accommodation (at a pre-agreed cost), for the days on which Parliament sits + pre-agreed travel cost, both paid directly to the supplier of these services. All other costs, as they have subsidised canteens, should be self-borne.

This would have two spin-offs. Costs would be trimmed and, more importantly these Public Servants would spend appropriate time in their Constituencies.
9

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 27/05/2008 10:06:20
Shades of "let them eat cake" or the Tsar's Winter Palace here. Complete contempt for the people they are supposed to serve.

#8 completely agreed - why could accommodation not be purchased and used on a "hot seat" basis like other companies do, since at any one time there is poor attendance. Either this or reasonable hotel accommodation to deal with any overflow such as when the poor dears vote on giving themselves this type of £23,000 largesse. This would also obviate any personal capital gain from purchase of second properties and negate the need for expensive John Lewis lists/kitchens/bathrooms.

If the rest of us are having to draw our belts in (and how), MPs and MSPs should be leading the way in trimming out unnecessary cost.
10

JayJay,

Right here 27/05/2008 10:10:06
Is the Michael Martin who chairs this committee the same guy who claims a second home allowance for a property gifted to him by his mother, and who thinks it absolutely essential that his wife spends £4k on taxis to take her to and from Lidl?
These guys should open their John Lewis curtains (£400 per sqm, excluding linings) and take a look at the world outside. No-one else gets these benefits, never mind the entitlement to vote for them amonst their own little club. No-one else works less than they holiday - royals excepted, albeit clearly when they are on "holiday" they are very busy in their constituencies. Everyone else is being battered by an ever more imaginative set of taxes, with wages pegged back.
So, why do they deserve this? Must be because they are so good at running the country (into a recession).
11

subrosa,

27/05/2008 10:20:08
I do hope the English papers are running with this headline today.
12

,

27/05/2008 11:37:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 27/05/2008 11:38:30
The Inland Revenue provide a frame work for business expenses that are UK wide. I regularly have to argue the case about genuine business expenses with them.

Allowing themselves to claim for expenses. Wives Taxi's, Gardening but non allowing us the same rules.

MP's should be made to claim under the regime they made for the rest of US. Maybe then they would try and make it fair.

The MP's are the lowest form of parasite. They bleed you dry then expect you to thank them for it and be gratefull at their great public service.

Crooks, Liars and Fraudsters is what we have for MP's and it is a total disgrace. They either have no idea how repulsive we find them or they just do not care.

Justifying their pampered existence as public service makes me sick.
14

,

27/05/2008 13:37:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 27/05/2008 13:48:02
Surely they should only get financial support to finance a second location in London?
16

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/05/2008 14:16:55
#8 Frank I'd go further.

Would it not be easier for all MPs to to stay in secured government-owned premises? My understanding is that the MOD has a surplus of secured accommodation that could be ideal for this sort of use.
17

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 27/05/2008 15:15:42
17

The Fed, a good suggestion. Some kind of hostel, perhaps?
18

BobD,

27/05/2008 15:18:24
This is pure, naked greed - not to mention nauseating arrogance. That especially applies to Michael Martin himself. He doesn't have any second home as he lives free at our expense in London.

Not to be outdone, he registered his (also mortagage-free) Bellshill house not only as his second home, but his office (more lovely expenses!)

We, the people, are the employers, so we should be setting all MPs conditions of employment, not just salary and expenses.

How can we make our voices heard?
19

,

27/05/2008 20:16:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

morris,

edinburgh 27/05/2008 21:39:40
Kimba

On another post you ridiculed the spelling of Carlisle .

For the record:
CARLISLE: "Fortress of Luguvalos." From the name of a city in northwest England where the Romans settled and named Luguvalio "place of Luguvalos." Luguvalio was later shortened to Leol and prefixed with the British/Welsh word caer "fortress," rendering Carleol from which Carlyle was derived.

The name is a Welsh name therefore and Carlisle is an anglicisation of that name.

ie Carlyle is Carlisle SAME TOWN .
You are pobably not aware but the Carlyle family name is fairly prevalent around these parts,Thomas Carlyle being born just north of here in Ecclefechan(Scotland).

The modern English spelling is only that, as is the case with thousands of towns/fortresses which have been around since Roman times.
21

Paula,

27/05/2008 21:40:22
Shame on them. Absolute shame.

I don't earn that in a year, can they gift me £23k or maybe not bother taxing me and making me beg for it back through wftc?

Un-f***ing-believable.

Is the trough long enough for all the MPs to get their greedy pig snouts in? Thats what I worry about.
22

morris,

edinburgh 27/05/2008 21:48:25
A fixed payment which covers the rental of a house is adequate. 23,000 is giving them the same deal as they had before. Its a total rip off. They own the houses paid for by our taxes. If they want to BUY a house the public purse should contribute SWEET FRANCIS ADAMS.

Rent is a legitimate expense(and I dont mean from another MP or his relations).The gravy train needs derailing not repainting!

A house which he owns should be paid from his salary same as every body else has to do.

MP = Free House is NOT removing the gravy train.Its licensing it to continue!

Those who say we need to attract the right kind of people into parliament.I agree.So kick the money grabbing milking the gravy train filth OUT!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.