Accommodating MPs
As I mentioned on this blog a little while ago, there is an amount of discontent around MPs’ pay. I don’t think there is that much objection to them being paid well, but there are strong objections to them being ‘on the make’. The general consensus is that politics in the UK is, by global standards, pretty clean. In order for that consensus to remain valid, it is not enough only to have constant oversight and questioning of the remuneration and privileges that MPs have; the process of oversight must be seen to be properly conducted.
One particular issue is the package that MPs receive is an additional costs allowance (ACA) to allow them to live in London, assuming that they are not close enough to Parliament to commute on a daily basis.
The Commons Estimates Committee is as a result considering a proposal to buy a block to house MPs as a means of accomodating them in London without giving the impression that they are benefitting from expenses. The idea is half-wrong.
Before explaining why, I’d like to dispense with the three other options on offer. The first is to keep the Additional Costs Allowance, but tighten audit requirements. As it stands, the ACA can be used to help defray the cost of a mortgage. Unless that practice is to be stopped and the increased auditing means that it can only be spent on rental accommodation (which would be somewhat churlish) no real changes occurs.
The second proposal - to increase MPs’ pay and then say they must cover their own costs - doesn’t work. Quite apart from the cheap shots that would be made about a 20 or 30% one-off rise, if the cost of living in London were factored into basic pay, MPs would - not unreasonably - make a case for pay increases in line with the increase in house prices in London. This would lead to further accusations that MPs were on the make if their salaries, even if they had to cover two houses, rose significantly faster than everyone else’s.
The third proposal - for a new budget - would have exactly the same problems as the current system.
My preferred option, then, would be for the Parliamentary Estate to purchase the requisite number of flats - just not all in one place.
Firstly, individual MPs spread across the capital don’t present a nice, big target in the way that a big block full of MPs would - not just the block itself, but every bar and cafe in the area. The security implications would probably end up meaning more expenditure than now. The second problem is that the area around the block would swarm with lobbyists, PRs, campaigners and assorted hangers-on. Equally, the area would be like the City at weekends - devoid of life - for the extended summer recess, effectively killing off the local community.
It also misses an opportunity. The Jubilee line is quick and goes as far north as Stanmore and as far east as Stratford; at Westminster station, there is a direct entrance into the Palace of Westminster for passholders. The Parliamentary Estate could buy flats within (say) ten minutes’ walk of Jubilee line stations, allowing MPs to know what it’s like to live across the range of socioeconomic areas in London. That might be a positive outcome by itself.
xD.
PS - please forgive any obvious errors or emissions. I wrote this post on a train.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
reminds me of the ‘Yes Minister’ scene about making ministers ride the bus
April 4th, 2008 at 1:18 am
“You might well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.”
xD.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am
I don’t think there is that much objection to them being paid well, but there are strong objections to them being ‘on the make’.
I think that sums it up fairly well, Dave.