They called it the Ford Sierra scam. The deal was that the Commons fees office paid MPs’ car allowances on bands based on engine size. A Ford Sierra 2.3 diesel fell into the top band, attracting a generous mileage allowance, but was cheap to buy and run – even cheaper second hand. Those willing to trundle around in an old banger could make thousands a year – and you’d be surprised how many did.
When dear old Mick Portillo, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Major government, tried to put a stop to this nice little earner in the early ‘90s, delegations of the Great and the Grim descended on poor little Micky from a great height and made clear – in no uncertain terms – that his career might be compromised by any change to the rules. Micky P saw sense, clever chap – much good it did him.
Of course much of the current reporting on MPs’ allowances is grossly unfair – and they deserve no better. MPs have got to have reasonable living allowances to do their job and the so-called John Lewis list does not mean that MPs can claim for all the items every year. The list does not affect the global £23,000 annual living allowance which each MP can claim – any Lewis List items have to come out of the total.
But MPs all know – just as we did – that the system is so open to abuse that no private sector organisation would tolerate it. And the gap between what the Commons Fees Office consider reasonable for MPs to spend and what most of the rest of the country can afford is a little, well, obscene. Well-heeled Kensington matrons can afford “never to be knowingly undersold” – excuse the guffaws – at John Lewis. So can those lucky enough to be trousering the taxpayer. It’s Ikea for the masses – or, God forbid, Magnets.
But the real difference between a decade ago is that now MPs have voted themselves ever more generous allowances and seem even more divorced from reality. This is part of a silent compact between the new Labour government and backbenchers – you allow us to erode your powers and we will give you a relatively comfortable and lucrative life. Things can only get better, they promised. Well, they sure as f—k have got better for MPs.
And now, in an uncomfortable echo of the cash-for-robes row, MPs caught red-handed are proposing they scrap the allowance and just have their salaries ramped up by a cool 60% or so.
For the bigger issue is how MPs’ office and constituency allowances have been allowed to creep up. Legitimate office costs, fine – but £10,000 a year allowances for “communications” and taxpayer-funded constituency officers? That just entrenches MPs and disadvantages challengers. And don’t even get me onto the subject of Party funding.
Phillip Oppenheim
Filed under: Uncategorized
The way MPs’ expenses and allowances are treated is something that no public authority would contenance. Nothing but nothing can be claimed without receipts and justification. What is more interesting is the Inland Revenue’s attitude. The ceiling cost for tax free relocation is £8,000 – any expenditure over this is taxable; any allowance for a second home is automatically taxable in full but I have seen nothing about the taxation status of these payments to MPs. If they are not being taxed then being judge and jury in your own cause is obviously helpful.
[...] The Political Animals are being a touch sceptical. [...]