UKC

Hi folks,
forgive my total ignorance and lack of understanding about this but my daughter heard on the news about MP's having expenses and she asked why they got paid money to "fix up their houses and does anyone else get money for that?"

Bless her little 6 year old mind . I have no idea why they get paid money to upkeep houses but noted that they can claim to upkeep a London property (for quick access to Parliament) and one in their own constituency;

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/

So, I know they get expenses but why are they allowed this and is the answer as simple as "they voted it in for themselves and that's that" I'm also assuming no one else in this kind of civil servant employ gets this type of benefit?

I clearly need to brush up on these things so I can give a decent answer to the inquisitive one!

Cheers, Den

In reply to Denni:
In part its the idea that they are expected to be in London much of the time to represent their constituents but obviously still need to live at home sometimes when they are back doing constituency business. Also in part it is the idea that anyone should be able to afford to be an MP, you shouldn't need to be independently wealthy to do it.

Tell your daughter to ask at school as citizenship is on the national curriculum and all these things should be taught to kids (I say this bit in jest, because despite the legal requirement, citizenship does not get taken very seriously by many schools).

In reply to Denni:
The basic premise of MP's expenses is that if they weren't provided by the state, the only people that could afford to be MPs would be the rich as practically speaking they need to be able to live close enough to parliament to be able to vote and represent their constituencies and require a certain amount of office staff to effectively do their duties. With out these expenses the thought is that a poor person could not be an MP which is fundamentally unfair.

A much better model (that I believe is adopted by Denmark) is for the state to own and loan basic functional housing near the parliament for the use of MPs instead thus no benefit (profit) is retained by MPs. These are functional buildings not very different to a Travel Inn - Clean but basic.

These days with MP salaries being what they are there should be no or a much smaller need for such expenses.

How it got like this is anyone's guess, but the sheer amount of different benefits available to MPs is well over and above anything available in "normal" work.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I have said for years that rather than pay for mp's private dwellings they should be allocated a room or a suite of rooms depending on their level in a communal building.
Food would be provided in the on site restaurant and meeting rooms could be booked.

It would cost a lot to run but it's got to be cheaper than funding x amount of different dwellings.

In reply to Denni:

I don't think you're asking one question here, you'r easking two.
Which do you want to explain to a 6 yr old?

Employees having expenses is easy. I get to claim expenses if I travel down south because otherwise my wage could disappear on train fares.
Further, MPs HAVE to work all over the country but also HAVE to be in London some of the time. They need to be given accommodation and travel expenses or no one would be able to do the job who lived far away and werent' already rich ( and willing to spend that money on their job).

Why are expenses abused and possibly unfair? another question entirely but I think it's colouring your approach here. Do you want to explain political corruption and all that goes with it to a 6 yr old?

ps. smart kid.

In reply to Denni:

I think that you could say that expenses is money they you have paid out in behalf of your employer to be able to do the job they want you to do. You do not in any way gain from receiving expenses , you should only get the money back that you spent on their behalf.

The trouble can come when money is spent to improve a property ( not just maintain it) which grows in value as a result.
Who then should benefit from that profit when the house is sold. ( it should of course come back to the taxpayer,but that hads not always been the case)

In reply to Jim C:

>( it should of course come back to the taxpayer,but that hads not always been the case)

No, it shouldn't. It should be dealt according to whatever arrangements were in place when the work was done, which would have formed part of the package of remuneration the MP was entitled to.

Honestly, the bollocks people talk about this. In no other walk of life would people think it was a good idea to retrospectively deny people the contractual entitlements that were part of what led them to take the job in the first place.

jcm