MPs allowances
Posted by Mike Gapes, MP for Ilford South, at 12:09, Wed 8 April 2009:
The press and media have been working through the recently published data on how MPs spend their allowances and finding many things to comment on. The results have been a feeding frenzy of coverage – most of it hostile.
I've put a statement on my website about my use of allowances (see http://bit.ly/mikegapesAllowances) and you can find a summary of all MPs expenditure on parliament's website (see http://bit.ly/mikegapesHOCAllowances).
I am contacting you via HearFromYourMP as I would like to know your views on how MPs salary and allowances should be decided.
Do you, for example, have an opinion on whether MPs should only have one job and not earn money from other employment? What are your thoughts on who should decide what MPs get paid and what their allowances should be? Is it right that the government continues to block the implementation of the independently determined MPs salary awards? And should there be a system for providing accommodation for MPs who need to have a home in London as well as in their constituency?
If you have any views on these questions or on this topic generally, please post them on the HearFromYourMP site. I'll reply to the comments no later than 24 April 2009.
With best regards
Mike Gapes
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Pádraig Floyd, 16:23, Wed 8 April 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Mike Gapes,
Thank you for your letter concerning MP allowances, I found your views most interesting.
If an expense is incurred as a result of the discharge of your duties, you should be entitled to claim it back. These allowances allow for these expenses to be reclaimed.
However, as they are paid for by the public purse, they should be subject to public scrutiny if desired and therefore available under a FoI request at the very least.
I don't think that anyone would begrudge a MP recovering expenses incurred in doing their duty, but it is right for people to be concerned about the abuse of allowances, which in the most serious of cases, might be considered as fraud.
While the nonsense of the porn films was used as a stick to beat a minister, I feel it was a trifle caused by an oversight on what is essentially a bundled utility service provided into the home. However, you must recognise that there have been other examples of claims that require further investigation.
I also have something to say about your online statement. Journalists do indeed receive expenses, but they are not allowances. They also must be claimed against defined criteria and each must be justified. This is even more the case in these turbulent times.
Journalists, unlike MPs, are utterly accountable for their expense claims, and there are several layers of checks and balances in place to ensure each layer of financial management is in control of costs. If they break the rules/law, they too can and will be punished. Perhaps unlike many MPS, they might even lose their jobs over such a scandal.
Politics is indeed necessary, and often a noble pursuit, but is undermined not so much by the 'power of the press', but by those who are all too quick to get their snouts in the trough and don't mind getting caught at doing it.
There has been enough evidence to suggest that the system of allowances needs immediate review. Some has also quite rightly raised suspicions as to how some MPs have used allowances. So to blame the press for airing your dirty laundry (and I use that phrase in a cross-party sense as it isn't only the government that has been caught out) is not only unfair, but wrong and a rather crass attempt to deflect blame from your colleagues.
By all means tighten up the rules - no one will impede your efforts on that score - and then perhaps there won't be any need to debate this in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Pádraig Floyd, an ignoble journalist
Posted by Tariq Juneja, 10:18, Sun 12 April 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
As a member of Parliament you represent the highest levels of public service to your country. It is only correct that these expenses are all documented and placed in the public domain. Additionally you should not be allowed to profit in terms of property or other personal gains in your family from the moneies claimed back from the state. This seems to me to be a just state of affairs for public officials. I think it's pretty cynical that we get these kinds of requests for feedback whilst in Redbridge crime is at an all time high and our local services in terms of education and medical care are under threat - King George Hospital may be closed and we have a teacher training facility at Christchurch school where the space is really more needed for more classrooms - there is space in larger parts of the Borough for the teacher training facility. So tighten the financial rules to save money being squandered by MP's - it's a disgrace in these times of economic difficulties for the average people.
Posted by MICHELLE EDWARDS, 06:29, Sat 20 June 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
As regards to the statement read by Mike Gapes above, he is putting across, that he is spending correctly, and we have to remember that Mp's are also people, and are hard working, which we have had good proof of, as the MP has been very prompt in supporting our needs when an issue has arisen and many people who appose the idea of the MP being able to have a 2nd job, should think back to wheather they have possibly bent a rule or 2 in life themselves before being propmpt in speaking out against them. If an individual exploits the law, then they should be dealt with as an individual only, in the same way that an officer exploiting the law, should not mean that all officers should incur a change of rules or be questioned. So in our opinion, having a 2nd job is not something that the public cannot do, so therefore should not be taken away from the MP, as each individual has to feed their familly and live, and when those on a lesser wage see one earning more than them, sometimes they feel inclined not to be happy with it. Others do not refuse benifits from their jobs in day to day life, amd would be outraged to have it questioned or suddenly have it dragged away from them, and I support that Mike Gapes works hard, and should have the freedom to have a life as with everyone else, with a few benefits to the job as with some other jobs, without exploiting the system, and exploitation should be dealt with on an individual basis only, and those living by the rule should be alowd to continue in peace.