Lazy Lob
08-24-2009, 05:02 AM
Will they get away with it?
From The Times
August 24, 2009
MPs hijack expenses inquiry with complaints and demands for pay rise
Tom Baldwin
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 by The Times 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 MP for Thanet North called for some “unpalatable adjustments” to correct this “imbalance in the remuneration package”. Mr Gale defended his right to employ his wife in his Commons office, even though dealing with up to 150 constituents’ inquiries a week had taken a toll of her health and “upon our marriage, which nearly reached breaking point”.
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. “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,” he said.
Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, suggested that MPs outside London should be paid £95,000 a year. “We do not need expenses, we need a decent salary,” he wrote. 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.
“There seems a widespread and confused view that MPs should be punished and their lives made as uncomfortable as possible,” she wrote. “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 PICT [Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology] are not sufficient.”
Bob Spink, the independent MP for Castle Point, complained that travel expenses were so low that he had to subsidise “visits to schools, constituents etc” out of his own pocket.
Mark Field, a Conservative, complained that inner-London MPs such as himself had an “extremely raw deal” by not being able to claim money for second homes. Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, said that those representing outer-London seats should be given free taxi rides home after late-night votes.
Other London MPs called for extra public funds to help them to cope with their caseloads. Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP for Islington South, said that she has had to put her salary into subsidising an office inundated by more than 1,000 constituent inquiries a month.
David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said that he needed more funding to “enable me to do my job as an MP effectively” in Tottenham.
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.
Chris Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland South, also objected to some of the coverage, including a Daily Mirror headline reading: “They are all at it”. He wrote: “The only place I have worked where they were all at it was Mirror Group newspapers in the 1970s, where my expenses claim was rejected on the grounds that it would embarrass my colleagues.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6807128.ece
From The Times
August 24, 2009
MPs hijack expenses inquiry with complaints and demands for pay rise
Tom Baldwin
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 by The Times 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 MP for Thanet North called for some “unpalatable adjustments” to correct this “imbalance in the remuneration package”. Mr Gale defended his right to employ his wife in his Commons office, even though dealing with up to 150 constituents’ inquiries a week had taken a toll of her health and “upon our marriage, which nearly reached breaking point”.
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. “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,” he said.
Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, suggested that MPs outside London should be paid £95,000 a year. “We do not need expenses, we need a decent salary,” he wrote. 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.
“There seems a widespread and confused view that MPs should be punished and their lives made as uncomfortable as possible,” she wrote. “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 PICT [Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology] are not sufficient.”
Bob Spink, the independent MP for Castle Point, complained that travel expenses were so low that he had to subsidise “visits to schools, constituents etc” out of his own pocket.
Mark Field, a Conservative, complained that inner-London MPs such as himself had an “extremely raw deal” by not being able to claim money for second homes. Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, said that those representing outer-London seats should be given free taxi rides home after late-night votes.
Other London MPs called for extra public funds to help them to cope with their caseloads. Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP for Islington South, said that she has had to put her salary into subsidising an office inundated by more than 1,000 constituent inquiries a month.
David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said that he needed more funding to “enable me to do my job as an MP effectively” in Tottenham.
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.
Chris Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland South, also objected to some of the coverage, including a Daily Mirror headline reading: “They are all at it”. He wrote: “The only place I have worked where they were all at it was Mirror Group newspapers in the 1970s, where my expenses claim was rejected on the grounds that it would embarrass my colleagues.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6807128.ece