Housing our political representatives
Susie Squire 6:06pm
The country has been rocked by recent revelations over MPs expenses. Politicians of all stripes are up to their neck in it – they have been claiming for everything from bath plugs to moat cleaning and the public are rightly hopping mad. But the era of outlandish claims will, hopefully pretty soon, come to an end. MPs voted a short while ago to make their expense claims almost totally transparent, therefore having public scrutiny as a powerful deterrent to stop them from engaging in this sort of greedy behaviour in future.
One area that has proved even worse than the luxury items and services claimed on expenses is the question of MPs making capital gains on property purchases. The most egregious and high profile abuses of the allowances system all involve the second homes allowance, and home purchases have been by far the most costly. MPs have claimed for mortgages that didn’t exist, have not provided receipts for rental and mortgage claim, and have been engaged in the morally questionable practice of “flipping”. Tellingly, the only bit of expenses information that will apparently remain secret is the address of those homes – information which is crucial to finding out whether flipping has gone on.
And, whereas there is cross party consensus on how to fix the expenses system, party leaders are curiously quiet about how to solve the quandary of what to do about MPs’ second homes. It is clear that we can’t go on as we have been, that haemorrhaging taxpayers’ cash to pay for MPs’ mortgages at a time when they can’t pay their own is neither financially sustainable nor morally justifiable.
So today the TaxPayers’ Alliance today released a report that outlines a permanent solution to the problem, for good. It’s right that accommodation is provided for people forced to work away from home, but it is time to put an end to MPs being allowed to keep and profit from that accommodation. Our proposal is to provide taxpayer-owned accommodation for those MPs whose constituencies are outside commuter range. That would prevent a recurrence of scandals when MPs make profits from selling homes financed with taxpayers’ money. MPs would not be obliged to take the flats, if they wish to make their own arrangements they are welcome to do so, but they have no further claim on the taxpayer. This system operates well in Sweden, Denmark and Japan. In Sweden, 250 flats were purchased in Stockholm after allowances scandals similar to those we have seen here led to public outcry.
We’re in a recession, and money is tight. There is no public appetite to spend a fortune on buying swanky new accommodation for errant MPs, many of whom have already spent a large proportion of their time fleecing taxpayers. Therefore the best solution is to house them in the Olympic Village once the games are complete. The Village 2012 Games will leave behind a legacy of over 3000 homes. The Olympic Village has not attracted the level of private sector investment that was anticipated and as a result has largely been nationalised. This means there will not have to be any significant extra capital expenditure to purchase the property, and will save taxpayers around £11.5 million in Additional Costs Allowance every year.
More than just purely financial considerations, this proposal will provide MPs with a key opportunity to increase their standing with the public. This option is cost effective, straightforward, voluntary and transparent. It is a veritable gift to shamed MPs – let’s hope they take it.
Susie Squire is Campaign Manager of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
Previous
luke
June 15th, 2009 6:33pm Report this commentDont most MPs live with their families in london most of the time?
How would this system offer accomodation in london suitable for families?
Better just to offer a rental allowance for a single furnished flat and allow them to choose whether their second home is in london or their constituency.
DC
June 15th, 2009 6:47pm Report this commentNah - stick them in some surplus Army accommodation (if there is any) and make them clean them spotlessly on departure. I reckon military accommodation would improve quite rapidly if you did.
Verity
June 15th, 2009 7:00pm Report this commentThe country wasn't "rocked". They were angered.
And many, many people suggested, all over blogdom, a block of dedicated flats, or a dedicated hotel. It's not a 'eureka!' suggestion. What a long, turgid rehash of recent events. One paragraph would have done it.
Nick
June 15th, 2009 7:13pm Report this commentEven cheaper and closer to Parliament is the Haywood estate at Elephant and Castle.
Even the residents might be pleases. Living with junkies, might mean the MPs get the place cleaned up.
It's cheaper
Percy
June 15th, 2009 7:36pm Report this commentThey could be billeted on members of the public for a week at a time.
Ian Walker
June 15th, 2009 7:57pm Report this commentLovely idea, but they'll play the terrorism card. The argument will be that having hundreds of MPs in a single location would be terribly risky.
Complete tosh, of course - I expect the Olympic Village would be much easier to secure than the ancient Palace of Westminster, but the excuse will last them long enough to cream off a few more quid......
amanwy
June 15th, 2009 7:58pm Report this commentAll in one place - bit of a gift to al qaeda?
wonderfulforhisage
June 15th, 2009 8:26pm Report this commentI suppose some MP's may have made a loss on property bought at the height of the boom. I assume they will have to take that hit and if this is the case then it would seem fair that they should be allowed to keep any gains.
I'll be interested to see if any MP claims a capital loss on expenses. I don't think anybody would dare to in the current climate.
Moraymint
June 15th, 2009 9:25pm Report this commentTo use a sporting term, just do it.
HedgePig
June 15th, 2009 9:44pm Report this commentThat's genius. It provides just the right amount of disincentive to hang around London for would be malingering MPs who can't be bothered to commute back to Clapham. Also, would move the political centre of gravity (and thus, in theory the economic) centre of gravity eastwards. Bloody genius. Mr Cameron?
Nigel Bradshaw
June 15th, 2009 11:24pm Report this commentThe Swedish government flats for its MPs are basic and small - from 18 to 40 square metres, some without windows. Can't see British MPs relishing such accommodation!
Steve.W
June 16th, 2009 1:36am Report this commentThe Olympic Games was in Athens in 2004 and the accommodation left behind when the games moved on was used as social housing. If the 2012 Olympic Village is used for our MPs this displaces at least 3000 of the most vulnerable people in society with a similar number of the most stupid. Is this really a good idea!
Verity
June 16th, 2009 2:22am Report this commentNigel Bradshaw - tough. We never promised them a rose garden. Live with the circumstances or don't work so hard to get elected.
American Congresspersons get no DC allowance and often share flats and maid expenses, etc. What is with this British sense of entitlement?
There is a sickening overweening British (especially English) desire to be placed above others. It's just awful.
Verity
June 16th, 2009 2:24am Report this commentNigel Bradshaw - Who asked them to "relish" it? If that's the accommodation, paid for by the taxpayer, that's the accommodation. Don't like the terms of employment? Seek work elsewhere.
Verity
June 16th, 2009 3:36am Report this commentSome American Congressmen share flats, as I said above, at economical rents, because they are paying out of their own pocket ... not yours.
Fergus Pickering
June 16th, 2009 4:05am Report this commentFlats without windows? Oh well, I suppose it's night-time forever up there and even when there isn't there's not a lot to see. This idea at least has a suggestion about what could be done with the Olympic Village. I had always supposed it would be torn down againpronto. Isn't that what happens to these ridiculous places? Do he Olympic thingies have windows?
Landlady
June 16th, 2009 8:07am Report this commentPut a sofa-bed into each MP's office in Portcullis House, just across the road.
strapworld
June 16th, 2009 8:13am Report this commentExcellent suggestion. But, of course, it will be ignored.
Politicians, it has to be remembered, are a different breed. They know 'everything' and pontificate with great depth of knowledge on 'everything'
We have politicians that one day can be a postman, the next day Home Secretary! Or even a run of the mill teacher can become Home Secretary, Just like a leader of a Council can also!
A son of a priest, with no experience whatsoever in economics can become Chancellor of the Exchequer! as can a failed rock band singer and guitarist become Prime Minister.
The list is endless. So what makes these very ordinary people special?
Four Wheetabix? Three boiled Eggs? or the stupid system which allows political parties to select.
If one applies for any public position, you have to go through a rigourous selection process by the Appointments Commission.
To ensure we do not have a Parliament of nodding dogs -as we have today!
Would it not be a good idea for all would be parliamentarians, in the first instant to be vetted and selected by the Appointments Commission. Then, once selected as suitable, they could approach any constituency which has a vacancy for whatever political party they wish to represent.
Or are we happy voting for whoever the party wants to put up?
John Moss
June 16th, 2009 8:31am Report this commentRubbish, rubbish, rubbish!
An MP's main job is in Parliament, representing their constituents. They are there 30-35 weeks a year, more if they are committee chairmen, ministers or shadows.
They should be paid enough to have their main home in London and a variable amount for a second home in their constituencies, where they have a significant, but secondary job.
This is a bizarre PR stunt by the TPA and well below their usual standard of research and campaigning.
Wily Trout
June 16th, 2009 8:59am Report this commentA pig sty would seem to be appropriate, with a nice big trough.
se1man
June 16th, 2009 10:08am Report this commentNick - "Even cheaper and closer to Parliament is the Haywood estate at Elephant and Castle."
I like the way you're thinking, but as a long-time resident of the Elephant & Castle area I would object to having hundreds of MPs move in next door.
Crime would go up for a start - from petty theft up to serious fraud - and they would just take take take from the already-stretched social services.
We really don't want their sort moving in and spoiling the area. Imagine what it would do to the value of my flat!
Can't we house them in Haringey? Or Stratford... the Olympic Village is a great idea.
our brian
June 16th, 2009 10:13am Report this commentno,no,no! if this went ahead the tax payers would be burdened with constant re-fits, cleaning, maintenance and security costs. The current system is ok as long as it is made transparent.
Dan Brusca
June 16th, 2009 2:33pm Report this comment@Verity The salaries and expenses of US congressmen are substantially higher than in the UK, so there's no need for a DC allowance.
There seems to be an attitude among may people that's tantamount to punishing people for being MPs, as illustrated by comments like that of the poster who suggests sofa-beds in Portcullis House. It's really not at all helpful, not least to democracy.
The suggestion that MPs are housed in the Olympic village is, superficially, a decent-sounding one, but the security issue is a legitimate concern. Housing the bulk of your legislature in one location is asking for trouble. The threat of a 'spectacular' attack would be small, but it significantly increases the risk of attacks on individual MPs as they travel to or from the village, particularly those with high public profiles and/or membership of sensitive select commitees.
Tt would also be a magnet for protest just as Parliament Square is now. Do we really want our Parliamentarians living in walled and fenced compounds, even further out of touch?
George Laird
June 16th, 2009 2:34pm Report this commentDear All
"Housing our political representatives".
Since when has prison not been good enough?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Back to top