Over the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk of MPs' expenses and just how they're being abused. There's a lovely graphic in Guido's post here showing MPs' salary and expenses compared to average salaries.
Now, I don't mind, in theory, that MPs get paid a higher than average salary. They do have a lot to do (in theory) and a lot of responsibility (in theory). I would love to link to a "job spec" for an MP, however, according to this Parliament leaflet:
MPs are generous with their help and advice, and they will generally try to assist their constituents with a wide range of problems. There is no job description for an MP and it is up to an individual MP which cases they take on.
This of course, only refers to one aspect of an MP's duties - individual case work. It does not cover their duties in parliament at all. So, let's try for a "fantasy job spec":
- to carry out individual casework surrounding central government services
- to represent the views of his/her constituents to ministers and parliament (asking questions, reading and forwarding consultation documents to the appropriate ministers/committees)
- to vote in parliamentary divisions according to the principals portrayed during the election campaign
- to represent parliament to his/her constituents
- to contribute knowledge and skills to appropriate committees of the house
Some of that feels very loose and woolly, and I'm probably missing stuff. It's definitely a fantasy job spec. It's what I would want MPs to be doing. It's not how parliament works at the moment and the discussions around parliamentary reform are trying to tackle certain aspects of it, but, as far as I can tell, no-one has gone for a ground-up "what do MPs do?" approach.
Because a large portion of their work requires them to be in London, I have no problem with the idea that they should get some expenses for living there. What expenses should be covered? They will need somewhere to stay. Is a hotel appropriate? Probably not. If they're going to be living there a while (parliaments are usually 4-5 years) for say 50% of the time a hotel room is probably not sufficient.
This leaves a house. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that all MPs should have a house in their constituency which is their main home - where their friends are etc. After all, they're representing that place, they should have some history with it (sarcasm off). This means that a second home is needed in London. Now, we have a way of determining what is a reasonable rent for an area - it's part of the Housing Benefit regulations and it's called Local Housing Allowance. This looks at the median rent in a "broad market rental area" for each size of property and is the maximum rent that (new) HB claimants can claim.
Now, I admit that this does still have unanswered questions. Should MPs be entitled only to single bedroom LHA or should those with families be entitled to claim for a property big enough for their family? I'd tend towards the former based on, again, the concept that this is the "place to stay in London", not the main home, but I accept that the family argument is a good one.
There's also the issue of an MP possibly having to furnish the new place. Someone suggested a flat allowance for each MP at the start of each parliament, possibly with more for a new MP to represent having to furnish a new place. Fine, as long as it's a reasonable amount and not measured in tens of thousands of pounds.
That's just a couple of thoughts. I believe that anything that MPs are entitled to need to be looked at in terms of what they allow normal people to claim. We're yet to see exactly what will come out of this mess, but I do hope it's complete reform and a much better Parliament that everyone can feel invested in and proud of.
Alex
x x
