How much should MPs be allowed to keep confidential?
The High Court has ruled that Members of Parliament must disclose details of expenses claimed for second homes and the location of those properties.
House of Commons authorities had sought to block the publication of second-home expense claims for 14 current and former MPs — including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown — requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
It had been argued on behalf of the politicians that publication of the addresses of second homes would pose a security risk and could inhibit what politicians would be
prepared to say publicly.
But Mr Justice Igor Judge disagreed, saying it was in the public interest to have a detailed breakdown of second-home allowances and that anyone determined enough could find an MP’s address anyway.
Under the so-called “John Lewis list” MPs can claim items up to 23,000 pounds a year for second homes, they need to be near their constituents. The details are here. They include for example 10,000 pounds for a new kitchen and over 6,000 pounds for a new bathroom.
Some critics have said the secret system allowed MPs effectively to “write their own cheques” but others say the war on MPs’ expenses has gone far enough — that they are public servants who devote a huge amount of their time to their jobs as MPs, often during antisocial hours and far from their homes and that they deserve some help if we are to have an effective national parliament.
What do you think?
Trackback
6 comments so far
As a public servant embarking on a career in politics the members key objective should be to meet his or her obligations to serve the public. It is recognised that this might involve working antisocial hours etc. However if the member is not prepared for this at the outset he or she should not complain once in service. Should a second home be required due to the location of the members constituency this should be allowed under present rules but should the member cease as a member any profits from the sale of the second property should be returned to the government….
- Posted by William ClarksonAs they are spending public money, I think they should extend the public the courtesy of letting us know what they are spending it on.
- Posted by MogwaiYes, fair enough MP’s should be payed handsomely and they deserve a second home. Do they really need up to 23,000 pounds a YEAR for their second home though?
- Posted by Tom MorganIt is perfectly reasonable that MPs can claim for the cost of having a second home. If your constituency is in, say, Newcastle, you would need a home there and one in London in order to be able to serve your constituents AND attend parliament.
However, it is also perfectly reasonable for taxpayers to expect to be told how much MPs are claiming for this priveledge since it is, after all, public money.
- Posted by Rolls EyesMPs should be paid a salary which allows them to maintain two homes. Lots of other people do it at reasonable cost (holiday homes) so why not them? The key thing is that they must be spending their own money, not snuffling in the taxpayer-funded trough. We would soon see a change in what they consider to be a “reasonable” cost.
- Posted by Mike TIt would appear that it is quite legal for an MP to falsify documents relating to work carried out by direct employees which is of no interest to their Council or the Inland Revinue. Is it really about their address? When will a braveheart actually stand up. The one on his butt in the speakers box at the moment makes me very ashamed. This is not our way.
- Posted by Angus MacDonald