George Foulkes: Expenses critics are a wee bit rich

Published on Wednesday 15 April 2009 09:48

WHEN I told my wife that I was planning to devote the major part of this column to defending my former colleagues in the House of Commons on the issue of expenses, she said she thought it was not the wisest course of action. I paraphrase her remarks.

But who is going to set the record straight? No newspaper has explained the situation properly and MPs seem to be suffering from collective fright.

If you believe what you read and hear in the media you will think every MP is pocketing, or "trousering" to use the awful new word, up to 150,000 on top of their salary.

The truth is that the largest part of these expenses are to pay staff and run offices in the constituency providing a service for constituents.

When I was first elected in 1979, there was no such provision. I was one of the few MPs who had an office in the constituency – paid for by the Labour Party. We ran a weekly tote to raise money to pay for rent and employ staff.

Before that, being an MP had been the prerogative of the rich Tory gentry and a few good solid Labour MPs with union backing enabling them to survive.

But, increasingly, the role of an MP has changed from a legislator in London who visited their constituency occasionally, to an advocate and super social worker, taking up issues and solving problems for constituents. That is why the independent Top Salaries Review Committee recommended an "office costs allowance" for MPs to set up offices to serve their constituents' growing needs and demands.

Which brings us to the second major part of the expenses – the cost of travel. No longer can MPs live in London and visit their constituencies from time to time. They are expected to be in the Commons from Monday to Thursday and back with their constituents, and families, at weekends. They cannot be expected to cover that huge cost out of a relatively modest salary.

This brings us, finally, to the third major complaint – the London living allowance. MPs outwith Greater London cannot be expected to travel home each night so need to stay in London during the week. The allowance was originally calculated by multiplying a civil servant's overnight allowance by the number of nights the House of Commons was sitting each year. Because of this, and because salary increases kept being foregone by governments nervous of the public reaction, the London allowance came to be perceived by some as a substitute for those lost salary increases.

It was originally paid in 12 monthly instalments but, paradoxically, the increasing clamour for accountability meant receipts had to be produced to justify it. This is what has led to the current anomalous position and regrettable abuse of the system by a few.

During my 26 years as an MP, I had never heard of the so-called "John Lewis list" and did not have a luxury kitchen or plasma TV on the allowance, but merely covered the real extra cost of having to live in London.

If the office cost allowance was to be cut, it would be the constituents who would suffer, not the MP. All of this has rightly raised the issue of whether the current level of MPs' salary is correct. Currently it is about half the salary of a GP and less than the headmaster of a small school.

Democracy is beyond price. I have seen military dictatorships and communist states and know how vital it is we have a fair, well respected and effective democratically-elected parliament.

In order to get the right people to stand, they need to be properly paid so we can attract people from all backgrounds. The current level of pay will not do that. If we pay peanuts, it is not surprising that we end up with some monkeys. Thankfully, we also end up with great leaders who are willing to accept the sacrifice.

There is, however, a quid pro quo. If a decent salary is to be paid to our MPs then they, in turn, might accept no extra outside jobs and pledge to work full-time for their constituents and in scrutinising legislation. That is only right and should, of course, also apply to MSPs.

I know I am setting myself up here, but please note that proviso. This would apply once elected members – MPs and MSPs – are properly paid. And it would also apply to members of the second chamber at Westminster if they also become full-time elected salaried members.

Tangled web

My experience tells me that this column will be the subject of many comments on the Evening News website.

Most stories get a dozen or two comments, any which criticise the SNP get many hundreds, and I have a few devoted followers who delight in commenting on pearls of wisdom which I very occasionally manage to see.

What is disappointing, however, is the vitriolic nature of some of the comments and the appalling grammar and spelling. They seldom address the issues but seem preoccupied with the perceived personal peccadilloes of the authors, journalist or people quoted in articles.

Astonishingly, they are posted all through the night and, while it is not a prerequisite for supporters of independence to be able to spell the word, it would increase our confidence in their judgement if they might resort to a spell-check from time to time.

There, that's off my chest, but I had better refrain from going online for this edition of my favourite evening paper.