Ocean's Thirteen? Twice??

I wrote to my MP, Rob Marris, a couple of weeks ago. It's a harmless hobby, and makes me feel temporarily good about our democratic process. I specifically asked him to discuss MPs expenses and housing with the government and party hierarchy. I didn't say that they were all corrupt, or should sleep in cardboard boxes, but I did point out that the system was flawed and that ministers taking advantage of loopholes encourages everyone to believe that all politicians are on the take. I also warned against the dangers of developing a class of professional politicians who've never held any other kind of job. Rob Marris, who is too rightwing for me as a loyal New Labour member, but is honest, thoughtful and hard-working (for which he deserves re-election), sent me this reply. It's not exciting, but it's sensible.

Dear Aidan,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 6 April 2009.

Some of the expenses claims made by MP's from all parties seem pretty strange.

It will not surprise you to hear that I support the general proposition that MP's from outside London should not be out of pocket because, on average, we have to spend 2 or 3 nights a week, for about 35 weeks a year, sleeping in London. For the last 25 years, I have lived in the same house in Penn Fields. I do not live in London. I do not wish to live in London. However, I do have to sleep there, because of my work. That is why I claim (about half of) the London accommodation allowance.

I have spent most of my working life in the private sector, where my away-from-home expenses were reimbursed by the partnership for whom I worked.

However, the whole system of MP's additional accommodation expenses needs to be radically overhauled. It seems to me that there are two possibilities;

1. Set an appropriate amount, and include it in MP's basic, taxable pay;

or

2. Set an appropriate flat, daily rate, not taxed, for each overnight in Westminster, away from home.

In either case, the 'appropriate amount' should be set by an independent, outside body, reviewed annually.

If an MP wishes to live higher off the hog than either of those amounts would permit, then it is up to the MP to do so, paying for the excess living from his or her salary. Conversely, if the MP wants to sleep under a bridge, then they can do so!

There are about 650 MP's. Some of them may well be 'on the make'. However, a number of the rest of us are certainly not, given that we took a pay cut to become an MP!

I am surprised at reports of some individuals claiming a London living allowance, whilst being provided with a grace and favour residence. As you say, Ministerial careers can be short lived. It seems to me there is a simple way forward: get rid of the grace and favour residencies (except for the Prime Minister).

We bought our house to live in, not as a piggy bank. Those who did otherwise are now paying the price. So are the rest of us, with the toxic debt of defaulting mortgages. I confess we did extend the mortgage once, but that was to invest in bricks and mortar, and we quickly paid it off.

There is a political class. Whether, as is suggested, it is separated from the interests and lives of the citizens is perhaps not for me, as an MP, to judge. However, the upper echelons of the 3 main political parties are increasing [ly?] filled with individuals who have not had for any real length of time, what I think most of my constituents would regard as a proper job, before entering Parliament at a relatively young age. In any individual case, it may well be explicable. However, as the body politic, particularly Parliament, becomes increasingly filled with people in that position, and the upper echelons disproportionately so, one does have to question the balance.

You asked me to relay your thoughts to party leadership. I have certainly done so, as regards MP's London expenses, and as regards the backgrounds of those who are increasingly dominating our politics.

Yours sincerely,

Rob.

I think that's pretty fair. MPs need somewhere to live in their consituencies and a base in London (except for the London MPs who seem to think that two or even three London homes is acceptable). A flat rate would be easy to administer and fair. So well done Rob! It's a bit cheeky to point out that he's taken a pay cut to become an MP: for the vast majority of us, an MPs salary would be a massive increase, and if it's true that most MPs suffer financially from being elected, it justifies my point that there is a professional political class which is divorced from society - made up of rich people.

Update: Gordon Brown has proposed a similar scheme.