MPS have been accused of scoring an own goal after voting to keep their £24,000 second home allowance.
They agreed to continue their generous system of allowances - including the so-called `John Lewis list' that enables them to kit out their homes with TVs, furniture and crockery at public expense.
An independent committee had called for the expenses system to be scrapped because it was too confusing and riddled with loopholes.
But MPs chose by a narrow margin of 28 votes to continue the controversial system.
They were voting on the recommendations of a major anti-sleaze review prompted by MP Derek Conway who had employed his son, a full-time student in Newcastle, as a £40,000-a-year parliamentary researcher.
He was suspended from Parliament for 10 days and ordered to repay some of the cash.
There have also been widespread concerns about the additional cost allowance, which has permitted some MPs to buy and furnish new homes despite their constituency homes being within easy commuting distance of Westminster.
Twelve MPs from Greater Manchester and the surrounding area voted to keep the system, six voted for reform and 13 abstained or did not attend the vote. Those who voted to keep the system were Janet Anderson (Lab, Rossendale and Darwen), David Chaytor (Lab, Bury North), Ann Coffey (Lab, Stockport), Andrew Gwynne (Lab, Denton and Reddish), Brian Iddon (Lab, Bolton South East), Tony Lloyd (Lab, Manchester Central), Ann Winterton (Con, Congleton), and Nicholas Winterton (Con, Macclesfield), as well as government ministers and local MPs Beverley Hughes, Phil Woolas, Ivan Lewis and Andy Burnham.
The six MPs who voted for reform were Labour's Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) and James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde), along with Tories Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) and George Osborne (Tatton), and Liberal Democrats Mark Hunter (Cheadle) and Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove).
MPs also voted for increased scrutiny of their expense claims, however, this would not be done by an external independent body.
But Lib Dem Nick Harvey, who helped draw up the proposed reforms, said the vote had created a `real headache' for those trying to rebuild public confidence in Parliament. He added: "It was a total own goal on the part of the House of Commons. An opportunity to put our house in order and be seen to put our house in order has been passed up."
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Rugbygirl, Urmston (03/07/2008 at 22:21)
bobbyc, manchester (03/07/2008 at 22:25)
Ministry of Truth Spokesman (formerly MC Spanner) (03/07/2008 at 22:49)
Says it all really
Odysseus, Stockport (04/07/2008 at 07:38)
jomov, Manchester (04/07/2008 at 09:38)
On a more serious note, wouldn't it be cheaper for the tax payer if the government bought a block of apartments which could be used by the MPs when necessary? Other large companies do this for their members of staff whilst on business in London or Manchester.
This is just unnecessary spending and a waste of tax payers money.
ace, manchester (04/07/2008 at 11:04)
Ministry of Truth Spokesman (formerly MC Spanner) (04/07/2008 at 11:29)
MPs have two places of work. Parliament and their constituency. They need to live in two places. One - Their home and the other their second home. That should be a given.
One of these should be paid for in the most efficient way possible by the taxpayer - Probably the London one as the constituency should be where they are from (Please note Kelly, Balls, Cooper, Usher, Purnell etc.)
I think that it should go to rented accomodation within a decent flat/house depending on where their family live. What it should not do is allow the MP to make a profit on the appreciation of a property. All items purchased to furnish said property should be returned on exit from parliament for resale.
Any histrionics along the line "I don't get the public to pay for my house" is irrelevant as MPs have two places of work. Derek Conway has done a lot of dame for decent MPs.
Nelly's Patch, Cheadle Hulme (04/07/2008 at 11:39)
jacko101 (04/07/2008 at 12:02)
We have poor public services, crime, poor roads, possibly more 'tax' coming and they do what about it?
They just hop aboard the gravy train and ignore what we want!
MR. SAVIRUS (04/07/2008 at 12:13)
However, now the media are all over this I suspect an FOI request will be made year after year by the media to scrutinise what expenses have been paid to each MP.
Mike S, Manchester (04/07/2008 at 12:42)
I see some sense in this, but we know where they work and the Houses of Parliament haven't been attacked yet. Also, everyone knows where the queen lives!
Alternatively, they could provide homes owned by the government throughout London for the MPs so they're not all together. The government must already own so much land and property in London as it is.
It really annoys me that being an MP is apparently also a licence to start (or increase for most of them) a property portfolio at the taxpayers' expense!
Manchester Dale, Manchester (04/07/2008 at 12:44)
Jay B, oldham (04/07/2008 at 12:58)
We the working public seem to be working just to pay tax. we have to work more hours to cover these taxes. we pay tax, tax on tax and even now tax on tax thats already been taxed.
where is all this money from tax going? it doesn't semm to be being spent on the right areas.
Also the benefits system is a farce now. its seen in many peoples eyes that its better claiming benefit than actually working. this is totally wrong.
also the open door immegration policy is causing many problems which aren't at the momment that visable, but wait till they rise to the suface and we'll all sit up and notice then.
lets start from scratch with all these problems. we might get things sorted.
if we dont we'll be too far gone soon to recover from this downward spiral.
Richy007, Manchester (04/07/2008 at 13:05)
Mark,Radcliffe. (04/07/2008 at 13:23)
Aunty Glo, Great Manchester (04/07/2008 at 15:05)
I did hear that Chelsea Barracks in London is empty,could this be refurbished and rented out to MP's who live out of the city?
Giles, Voice of City Fans (04/07/2008 at 16:27)
You are right in that taxpayers shouldn't pay towards their second homes and that they should live in an apartment block paid for by the taxpayers.
Can anyone answer this. When an MP buys a house that is then then subsidised by the taxpayer, when he/she sells it do they get to keep any profit, do they get taxed on it etc??
Kalamity Karney [AKA Scrotnig], Gorton (04/07/2008 at 17:38)
I do have something of an issue with the fact that they are allowed to profit from this by selling the home and pocketing the cash when they leave office. A substantial portion of this should be returned to the treasury, that way everybody wins.
As for MPs employing their family, as long as such people are genuinely doing the work being claimed for, I see no issue. As with any business, better to trust your family than some stranger who might screw you over.
Realism and fairness on all sides is all I ask.
jeffb, buxton (04/07/2008 at 18:49)
-Soothsayer+ (04/07/2008 at 23:21)
LookingForLogic, Stockport (05/07/2008 at 02:28)
Though perhaps the furnishing budget should be lower unless they are funding the extras out of their own pockets.
Cheaper alternatives...
Toilet seat £6 argos
Kettle £8 almost anywhere
Portable TV £40 almost anywhere.
I could go on, but wouldn't want to shock the people who actually read the bill for furnishing too much.
ace, manchester (05/07/2008 at 11:45)
mancmanomyst, Wythenshawe (05/07/2008 at 12:50)
For me it should be a requirement that any candidate should have spent at least 3 years living in the locality of that area. None of this putting morons in safe seats.
I also think that in the 21st century we have the technology to do business via video links. Our MPs should be permanently based in our region - wouldnt need a second home if parlimentary affairs were conducted via video link.
Get rid of the subsidised meals!
Get rid of the ALL expenses and just add 20k onto their wages to put them closer to other executive type roles.
Ban paying relatives and others like nannies as there is a clear conflict of interests
And finally cap their wage rises to 2% like they are capping public sector workers!
In fact there should be an independant body that decides their pay etc - it's ridiculous letting MPs vote on their own pay
Pete in Salford, Salford (05/07/2008 at 16:07)
gladys rowbotham, Manchester (05/07/2008 at 19:50)