parliament

A clarification of terms

Submitted by JMB on Tue 09/Jun/2009

While writing a quick post about the recent European Parliamentary elections, it occurred to me that there was a possibility for confusion to arise in some old posts as to whether I was referring to the United Kingdom Parliament, or to the European Parliament.

Therefore, for future posts I shall adopt the following convention:

This also clearly summarises the relative power of the two assemblies, and cuts down on the typing.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Another Parliamentary expenses wind-up

Submitted by JMB on Wed 27/May/2009

Over at Dizzy Thinks, the eponymous blogger asks:

Something has been bothering me about all these MPs, Tory and Labour, who have been found to be royally taking the piss out of the expenses system and thus quitting. Why is it that they're all stepping down at the next election? Why are they not going immediately?


It couldn't be because they need the money for just a little longer could it? Aren't we just being taken for fools by them some more? They're all going to potentially have another 10 months of spending taxpayer money. How is that a punishment exactly?

Two possibilities spring to mind. The first is that Parliament is anticipating another round of public humiliation over the Winding-Up expenditure allowance which is available to all MPs leaving Parliament.

The second reason is that another allowance to which they are all entitled - the Resettlement grant – cannot be claimed if an MP leaves a Parliament before a general election.

The Winding-Up Expenditure, as detailed in the Green Book:

[…] is designed to meet the cost of completing the outstanding parliamentary duties of a person who ceases to be a Member of Parliament. […] The allowance is available for all Members who fail to be re-elected or who do not stand at a General Election or who leave the House during a Parliament.

The calculation of the Wind-Up are a bit fiddly. At the last “big” review of allowances, the Select Committee on Members Estimate Committee (Third Report) made the following proposal:

Recommendation 31: We recommend that the Winding Up Allowance be renamed Winding Up Expenditure and that, after the next general election, the ceiling be calculated as one third of the relevant annual Staffing Expenditure, plus one third of the limit on Other Office Expenditure and one third of the actual annual office rent or lease claimed by each MP concerned.

The Resettlement Grant is even better:

[The grant] may be claimed to assist former Members with the costs of adjusting to non-parliamentary life. […] The Resettlement Grant is available for all Members who fail to be re-elected or who do not stand at a General Election. Members who leave the House during a Parliament are not eligible to claim the grant.

And it’s a very nice grant at that. It is service-related, with an entitlement equivalent to a minimum of 50% of parliamentary salary. After 15 years in Parliament an MP is entitled to a year’s salary. In all cases, the first £30,000 is tax free. To get some idea of the magnitude of this payment:

578ii30

A member who leaves during a Parliament for ill-health is of course entitled to an ill-health retirement grant which is calculated in exactly the same way as the resettlement grant. So don’t be surprised if – subsequent to any further public outrage – there are a few retirements on health grounds.

The first MP to get to the fees office with a bad cough is likely to beat the rush, and fly under the radar. I wonder who it will be?

Related Links

Bookmark/Search this post with:

MPs Expenses

Submitted by JMB on Wed 13/May/2009

A missive from the Conservatives to local party activists.

Now it’s not a perfect solution, and I’d still like to see at least one Conservative MP retire to their study with a glass of whisky and a pistol, for form’s sake if nothing else.

But, it’s a start.

David Cameron and the Conservative Party are today announcing a series of measures on the issue of expenses paid to Members of Parliament.

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS

Between now and the launch of Sir Christopher Kelly’s report, we will implement the following steps:

  • Today, Shadow Cabinet members have agreed to pay back expenses claims that have caused concern.
  • All claims made to the Fees Office will be published immediately online. This will start straightaway for the Shadow Cabinet. Arrangements will be put in place for Frontbenchers and all Conservative MPs as soon as possible.
  • No Conservative MP will be allowed to re-designate their first and second  homes for the purposes of the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) without approval by the Chief Whip. This will deliver an immediate ban on so-called ‘flipping’. Any decision to change designation, (which would have to be for genuine family reasons) must be published immediately with a full explanation.
  • From now on, anyone selling a home for which mortgage interest is currently paid for by the ACA must confirm they will pay Capital Gains Tax on it.
  • An immediate ban on all Conservative MPs claiming furniture, other household goods and food shopping. Only rent, mortgage interest, overnight hotel bills, utility bills, service charges and council tax can be claimed by Conservative MPs from now on.
  • Further to all of these interim reforms we are setting up a scrutiny panel for reviewing all excessive cases and to make arrangements for repayment of public funds where appropriate.
  • The panel will include an independent member.

A slightly more radical approach to setting MPs expenses would be to require candidates to “bid” for their annual salary when completing their nomination papers, and to have that bid printed on the ballot paper next to their name and party. (Someone else thought of this, but I’ve lost the link).

One fundamental issue that needs to be be hammered home, is that many Members of Parliament seem to be of the opinion that in some sense they are worth the money. It was tacitly accepted that the expenses and fees procedures existed to pad parliamentary salaries up to the “proper” level.

But, ultimately, it is the market that sets the price. There are no shortage of people who want to become Member of Parliament, and MPs don’t seem to tempted to leave public office in droves to get well-paid jobs in the private sector. Supply exceeds Demand. So clearly, they’re not worth £250,000 a year which is the effective price of an MP when you add in all the office costs, expenses and gold-plated pension.

This does segue into the topic of Councillor’s allowances, as the independent review panel that is likely to be convened to set salaries for MPs is not dissimilar to the type of body that operates here in Bristol to set Councillor’s allowances. We also have a second parallel, in that the extra allowances for the Leader of the Councillor are indexed-linked to the salaries of senior civil servants, which is another proposal on the table for Parliamentary salaries.

I shall be reviewing some of my old posts on these topics. Perhaps we could trial that “bidding” approach on a local level with Councillors' allowances...

Related links

Bookmark/Search this post with:
Syndicate content