to think MP's second home allowance is too easily forgotten about

[freddy05]

They can claim up to £20000 a year in second home allowance from us taxpayers on top of all their other expenses claims, food entertaining, travel etc, and yet they are cutting people's benefits to the point that they are having to use food banks and cutting housing benefits for people having 'spare' rooms and totally capping benefits at £26000.

I can't quite believe that people who are supposed to be serving our country can get away with having so much money in expenses from the taxpayer and still keep a straight face while they try and pitch us all off against each other.

The nation needs to save money, we all know that, but us voters seem to be missing the real problem and we're turning on each other while those in power are getting richer and richer

I agree the bar should be scrapped (although its not just used by MPs), but most public sector organisations have subsidised canteens. Hospitals certainly do as do most schools.

To be fair, most other subsidised canteens do not serve food of the same quality!!

I've been to that bar

was it nice pootles2010 ?

I am so pleased that the OP has highlighted this second home for MPs nonsense. I know a few OHs who have to work away all week and can only visit home at the weekend who don't get this kind of recompense; it is regarded as their reward for doing the decent thing and 'getting on their bikes'.
As ever one rule for them and a different rule for the rest of us.

Just googled what MPs can claim. They are paid a basic salary of £65,738 (increasing depending on additional committees they sit on or ministerial roles they take on), the exchequer pays 20% pension contribution and they can claim:

Expenses for which MPs may claim include:

Accommodation: Payable only to non-London area MPs to cover expenses incurred for overnight accommodation necessary for the performance of an MP's parliamentary duties. Claims may be made for rental payments and associated expenses such as utility bills, up to an annual limit of £19,900 of which a maximum of £17,400 may be claimed for rental payments. Alternatively MPs may claim for hotel accommodation up to a maximum of £130 per night in the London area and £105 elsewhere.

London Area Living Payment: This payment is limited to £3,760 per financial year payable monthly and is intended to contribute towards the additional expense of living within the London area.

In March 2012, IPSA announced that the Accommodation Expenditure budget would rise in line with inflation. The budget for mortgage interest has been reduced because that subsidy will not be claimable after August 2012.

Travel and Subsistence: MPs may claim for certain travel and subsistence expenses, including food and non-alcoholic drinks, incurred in relation to their parliamentary duties. This includes journeys between the constituency and Westminster, travel within the constituency, extended UK travel and journeys to the EU, all subject to specific limitations and conditions set out by IPSA. MPs may also claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred for family members and members of their staff, again subject to specific conditions. Claims may also be made in relation to late night parliamentary sittings for hotel accommodation and taxi fares.

Staffing Expenditure: In its annual review published March 2012, IPSA stated that it had increased the budget limit for staffing to £137,200 for non-London area MPs and £144,000 for London area MPs. This money can be paid directly to staff as salaries and related costs: it is not a personal expense available to the MP. IPSA will also revise the job descriptions of MPs? staff, but pay ranges for staff remain unchanged.

Constituency Office Rental Expenditure (CORE): MPs may claim for the costs of maintaining constituency offices and for the rental or hire of offices to provide surgeries. For London area MPs the annual CORE budget for 2010/11 is limited to £12,761 and for non-London area MPs the limit is £10,663. No expenses may be claimed for the rental of a property if the MP or a "connected party" is the owner of the property.

General Administration Expenditure (GAE): MPs may claim for office equipment including initial installation and maintenance, the procurement of services and for communication costs including stationery. The annual GAE budget is limited to £10,394.

In March 2012, IPSA announced that the Office Costs Expenditure budget would rise in line with inflation.

Winding Up Expenses: These expenses are designed to meet the cost of completing the outstanding parliamentary functions of a person who ceases to be a Member of Parliament and are limited to £40,609.

Miscellaneous Expenses: These include Disability Assistance which may be claimed for necessary additional expenditure incurred in the performance of parliamentary functions which is attributable to the disability of an MP. Security Assistance which may be claimed for any additional security measures deemed necessary for an MP. Contingency payments which may be claimed for expenditure incurred in relation to an MP's parliamentary duties which is not covered elsewhere in the scheme.

OP, YANBU. No wonder there has been a rise in the career politician, it's a great job to get into.

Why are we "picking" on MP's? Because it's taxpayers money...like the money that the DM claims (and the government through Osbournes commentary recently) to be being "squandered" by "vile products of UK welfare". Except in this case the MP's really are getting luxury on taxpayers money in a time when they've been discussing austerity and pointing the finger (directly and indirectly) at the weak and vulnerable for the nation's economic woes.

a strict cap on expenses. My MP claimed for a toaster that cost £160. What toaster costs £160??? Tesco basic for £14.99. It only has to make fucking toast.

Plenty of people do get that kind of recompense when working away from home though, Conference - many professionals I know have flats rented for them by their companies, or are put up in hotels for months on end.

£65k isn't a lot of money to earn, particularly not in London. If you have to cover a second house on that (on top of the home you have in your constituency) them I expect most people would struggle and it would deter people from going into the role. As for dorm rooms and tower blocks - really? We want to make people in their 40s and older live like they did at boarding school?

Amazing that their expenses budget is rising with inflation and yet benefits for those whom the government has deemed a legally entitled to claim are only being raised by 1% - nearly 2% below inflation....

maybe it would achieve people being there for the job and not the cash they can squeeze - maybe an mp with some integrity rather than one milking the public purse for all it can get.

In reply to HotelTangoFoxtrotUniform - I know that plenty of people have flats rented for them and hotel bills paid. The difference is that as a taxpayer I pay for the MPs.

Their salaries aren't rising with inflation though - they were frozen for a year and then are at 1% too.

If people don't like it not saying that i do they can always stand for election themselves or campaign their MP's to change the rules.

It's not the allowance or the £400 a week food allowance that's the problem, it's the abuse.

Given how few MPs turn up to parliament to warrant a second home, I'm not sure they need two homes. Maybe hotels at preferential rates? For example, they have a long summer and ultimately they serve their constituents so should be based there and travel to London when necessary. If you look at the chamber during most debates, it's poorly attended - only PMQs gets them in.

If MPs were paid £120,000 per year would there be this kind of outcry?

Surely the issue is they aren't paid particularly highly for a demanding job with little security and with a huge amount of responsibility. The expenses were brought in to boost the salary in the first place. Why not just pay them properly and ditch the expenses that everyone gets so upset about.

Their salaries put them in the top 10% of earners already.

They don't run the country, they represent their constituents. Those MPs which have additional responsibilities get higher salaries (eg cabinet ministers, the PM etc)

So I don't think they need higher salaries quite frankly.

£62k, when set against what many MPs could earn in other careers really isn't that much.

Most lawyers, senior Drs, accountants, IT and management consultants, PR, senior sales and marketing people and countless others are all better paid.

I do agree though, that some kind of central accommodation close to the HoC would be a really good idea.

What does need to stop is the claiming of double lots of expenses. We are not all that far from London. Too far to come back very late (10/11pm), but close enough that it is possible to work a long day in London and be home. Our MP one year claimed both the full second home allowance AND the full cost of a first class season ticket to London. That was unnecessary IMO.

Proof in point. If we just supply Forces type accommodation, run by the already existing companies under the already existing housing regulations with an already existing rental scale where's the problem?

FWIW there are Senior Forces members who make use of the appropriate mess while away from their homes/quarters and they're over 40

What makes you think an MP could get a job like that elsewhere? Anyone can be an MP. That's why I think it's erroneous to make the comparison to professionals. People don't think "ooo I'll be a doctor or an MP". Being an MP is about personal drive to enter politics or maybe I'm naive

I say keep the allowances but sort out the abuse.

1% of 64k = £640 ( annual pay raise in 1 person's salary) - bit over 10 pounds a week which would heat a flat for a week.
1% of £20k = £200 (annual pay raise for average family of 4 on benefits) £4 a week, which heat this family's flat for half a week.

Who need's it most?

Appropriate mess facilities for senior officers are private rooms though, aren't they ankle ? Upthread there was a suggestion of dormitory beds, which is a little silly and what my response was aimed at.

alibaba did your MP have to repay any of his expenses? I bloody hope so seeing as he was charging twice!

It's tempting to say something about Leveson - if we had government regulated press we wouldn't even be having this debate as we wouldn't know the extent of the expenses claimed - legitimately or otherwise - thank goodness for the Telegraph bringing it to our attention!

If you include the allowance, it's more like £70k. And some MPs have second jobs, and some do not attend HoC all that often. They really don't have as much responsibility as people think.

I think about right for what they do, maybe a bit high. Worth noting also that there re many other people working in public sector who could earn more in private, but don't because they don't see money as the be all and end all. TBH I don't want MPs whose main motivation is money, although agree we should not limit pay so much it excludes people.

I don't think the fact some MPs could earn more doing something else is really an argument for increasing wages for all.

But Binky isn't it an argument that we don't attract some of the brightest and best as MPs as they can't afford the paycut?

Many people in the public sector earn more than they would in the private sector - it's a myth that you earn less working in the civil service these days (aside from for those at the top of their game). I took a pay cut going into my role in the private sector, along with the loss of holiday and pension, but the possibilities to earn we're greater. In the small (2000 odd people) agency I worked at more than 100 staff were of a grade where they earned more than MPs. That strikes me as odd.

It used to be a second career for those who had spent time in industry, law, medicine etc and it's kind of sad that we have professional MPs who've never been in the real world.

do not serve food of the same quality!!

Food in the HoC is pretty rubbish.