New rules published today by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority mean that MPs will no longer be able to profit from taxpayer-funded second homes, nor claim for gardening, cleaning or first-class travel.*
However, the scheme has stopped short of a ban on MPs employing family members. Instead, no more than one “connected party” (i.e. close family member, spouse, civil partner or cohabiting partner) may work for each MP, within approved salary and job description guidelines.
Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Chair of the IPSA said,
No longer will MPs benefit from a slack allowances system. This system brings MPs’ expenses into line with those in most other areas of life. Expenses will be reimbursed only for legitimate costs, backed up by receipts.
There will be complete transparency, so that members of the public will see, in detail, expenses claimed by MPs. The rules will be backed up with tough new measures and abuse of the system will not be tolerated.
The new system is fair, workable and transparent. It will enable MPs to carry out the job we ask them to do and will provide reassurance and value for money to the tax-paying public.
Key components include:
The “London Area” has been redefined: 128 MPs in constituencies within 20 miles or 60 minutes’ commute from Westminster (listed under Schedule 2) won’t be eligible for accommodation expenses. MPs outside the “London Area” will only be able to claim for a rented one-bedroom property. Associated expenditure can be claimed, such as utility bills, council tax, home contents insurance, landline, broadband and “connection to an approved television broadcast package and usage charges”
Non-London MPs may claim for travel from their constituency to Westminster or their London Area home. London-area MPs can claim for travel between their constituency office and Westminster.
So travel from constituency home to constituency office cannot be claimed – which is the same as any other commuter would expect. Travel within the constituency or within 20 miles of the constituency boundary may be claimed, if it is “necessary for the performance of their Parliamentary functions.”
Travel expenditure is limited to the cost of a standard class open return for rail, and economy class or equivalent for air, coach or ferry.
If business in the House continues late at night, taxi fares and hotel rooms are provided for, subject to times and upper price limits.
London Area MPs have a budget of £12,761; non-London Area MPs have a budget if £10,663. Associated expenses include utility bills, business rates, contents insurance and telephone and internet access.
Read the MPs’ expenses scheme in full at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority website.
Liberal Democrat Shadow Leader of the House, David Heath, welcomed the new rules:
I welcome what IPSA has published today. They’ve worked very hard to get a workable scheme up and available for the start of the new Parliament.
Nick Clegg was the only party leader who suggested a year ago that MPs should be taken out of the property game altogether, and I’m glad this has been taken up.
I hope the proposals will now be put in place and we can start the new Parliament with much greater public confidence in a system that is transparent and fair.”
*I’m still waiting to hear what counts as an “approved television broadcast package.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Roland
Joseph Bourke
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
6 Comments
Some of these rules appear to be way over the top. Abolishing the second homes allowance completely is wrong – the change should have been to stop MPs profiting from second homes, as Nick Clegg suggested, rather than having MPs being forced to rent.
What happens to those MPs who already have a mortgage for a second home – do they now have to sell their homes or can they just rent them out to each other?
And why limit the allowance to rental for a one-bedroom flat? MPs spend enough time away from their families as it is – I don’t see anything wrong with them being able to have their family stay with them. Indeed, as the parliamentary holidays are not synchronised with holiday times in Scotland, a lot of Scots MPs are going to be particularly affected by this.
As for stopping MPs from claiming first-class rail fares, that just seems like the politics of envy. MPs quite often go into first-class in order to do some work and I don’t have a problem with that.
Yes, a lot of MPs have abused their expenses, but the answer is to stop those abuses, not draw up new rules which seem designed to be the equivalent of a public flogging.
Whilst I recently became bored with public cynicism towards MPs, who only got away with it because the public just don’t give a shit, I wholeheartedly agree with these measures to make MPs basically bleed. It’s good for them. And it will be good for the country to see them suffer a bit. We have to make sure these sorts of expenses abuses don’t happen again. Yeah many MPs didn’t do anything wrong, but the House is a collective body: you cannot cure a cancer in one part of it without treating the whole body.
Do these new rules say anything about whether MPs can rent their accommodation from themselves?
In the long term I’d rather the public purse profited from the rental monies rather than the private market, but broadly I’m pleased with the outcome of the review.
As I said in my response to the consultation, any reality check for MPs, for them to pay for, live and experience services in the same way as we, their constituents, the better; only be experiencing what’s failing and broken will they be adequately motivated to fix it.
I don’t think so Alex; the proposals were reported earlier as requiring MPs to rent from commercial agencies and for all rental prices to be confirmed appropriate by being assessed independently.
I assume from the above that Nick can rent from David and David can rent from Gordon and Gordon can rent from Nick. No change at all then. You still treat us with absolute contempt.
Best Regards Dave Wilkinson