Morning:
9°c
The London MPs who claim for second homes
Jason Beattie, Chief Political Correspondent30.10.07
Sixteen London MPs are claiming taxpayers' money for a second home even though they all live less than an hour's commute from Westminster.
Research by the Evening Standard has found the MPs are getting as much as £22,000 a year in expenses designed to help towards the cost of owning another property.
Although they are not breaking any rules, critics say it is "extraordinary" that they are taking the money while living so close to Parliament.
Under Commons rules, MPs representing outer London constituencies are allowed to claim up to £22,110 a year in Additional Costs Allowance.
This reimburses MPs for the "necessary costs incurred when staying overnight away from their main home for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties".
The allowance was introduced for MPs outside London who needed to pay for a flat in the capital.
Greater London MPs were entitled to it because of the inconvenience of late-night sittings. The Commons used to sit from 2.30pm until 10pm on most days with the possibility that debates would carry on into the early hours.
But more family-friendly hours were introduced in 2002 and now the Commons sits in the morning on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, which means MPs are able to get away from the Commons earlier. MPs also get many more Fridays off to allow them to work in their constituencies.
Because of this, there are only two nights each week when MPs might be called on to sit late - Monday and Tuesday - and some members now admit openly that they use the allowance to pay for a second home - often a holiday bolt-hole outside London.
Last week the Standard reported how London's 73 MPs ran up a bill of nearly £9million for allowances and expenses in 2006-07.
Among those to claim the full £22,110 designed for a second home are Barry Gardiner, a former minister whose Brent North constituency is 26 minutes away from Westminster by public transport.
Others claiming the full amount are Leyton and Wanstead MP Harry Cohen, whose constituency is 28 minutes from Westminster by Tube; Conservative MP for Romford Andrew Rosindell, 40 minutes away; and Ilford South MP Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the foreign affairs committee, whose constituency is 39 minutes away.
Mr Cohen said it was a case of "use it or lose it". He said his main home was in Colchester and he used the allowance to pay for another in the constituency.
"At the end of the day it's really an adjunct to the salary. I would much prefer it if it was added to the salary but it is counted as a housing allowance," he said.
Mr Gardiner said he used the allowance to pay for the upkeep of a flat in Westminster in addition to his main home in Hertfordshire. "It is not just perfectly legal, it makes perfect common sense," he said.
"I work here frequently until midnight and beyond and have meetings which start at eight o'clock in the morning.
"It [the allowance] is there for me to better help my constituents," he added.
Mr Gapes said the expenses paid for the rental of a flat in Westminster. "It's perfectly allowed," he said.
However, Matthew Elliott, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Many Londoners regularly have to commute for more than an hour every day and I don't see why MPs shouldn't do likewise.
"Secondly, all the arguments used in the past to justify Greater London MPs having a second home have been blown away with the new Parliamentary sitting hours. They now have the time to commute back home."
James Allie, Liberal Democrat candidate for the London Assembly seat ofBrent and Harrow, said the money would be better spent on housing for London's homeless: "It is this kind of behaviour that gives politicians a bad name.
"The second home allowance is meant for MPs who live too far away to commute to Westminster. There is no conceivable reason why taxpayers should be paying a fortune to house London-based Labour MPs.
"Do they consider themselves too important to travel to work by Tube like the rest of us?
"Taxpayers' money should be spent on housing the poor and the vulnerable. Why should Labour MPs enjoy two places to live while so many people in our city are struggling to make ends meet?"
WHO CAN CLAIM THE ALLOWANCE
• The Additional Costs Allowance is paid to MPs to cover the cost of staying "away from their main home" - ie to help MPs who live a long way from Parliament with the cost of having a base in Westminster. They are allowed to claim a maximum of £22,110.
• Inner London MPs are not entitled to the allowance and receive an annual London supplement of £2,712 instead. Outer London MPs can choose between the ACA or the London supplement.
• The money does not have to be spent on a second home. It can go towards the cost of renting a property or for staying in a hotel or B&B.
Reader views (11)
The renewed anger about MPs'expenses is understandable, but misplaced. The fault lies with their being able to claim up to £20,000 per year, which encourages an 'I'll get as much as I can out of the system' mentality, and with the officers who approved clearly inappropriate claims once more under the spotlight. For me, the greater ill is the manifest abuse of the second home mortgage allowance that has been carried out in a calculated, cynical fashion. The authorities seem to think that an insincere and obviously forced apology (from Ms Smith) and an agreement to stop claiming for his house just down the road (Mr Maude) is an adequate response to actions which are to my mind both morally reprehensible and fraudulent. Many of us who work in the public service, as MPs do, are extremely careful not to make false claims, or otherwise misuse public money, acts which would quite rightly cost us our jobs and lose us the respect we work so hard to maintain. Ms Smith's so-called apology showed that she regards herself as above ordinary public servants, and indeed the Law. The real issue here goes beyond expenses claims both small and grossly large: false mortgage claims and 'flipping' properties betray a deliberate, arrogant intention to defraud the State that should be referred without delay to the Public Prosecution Service.
- James Wilson, Plymouth UK
with re-pect to mps 2nd homes and mortgages surely these houses and flats belong to the taxpayers after the mp either retires from service or dies ,it is surely not to be used by other members of his /her family as their main home and then used by the mp for a one off stay,as and when they can be bothered!there is now no-way that our mps can be called honourable when your revellations have clearly shown that they are nothing of the sort.I only hope that within the next 5years or so this dreadfull mess can be sorted out before we become totally bankrupt,their actions are similar to a carrion crow picking the last remaining pieces of flesh before the maggots have their fill!!!
- Keith, leeds17 yorks
Milton Keynes is only 40 minute commute yet Mark Lancaster MP claimed £22 541 on a second home allowance on a Westminster flat. I bet the crowd's of commuters at MK station wish they had an expenses allowance that covered a central London love nest!
- Mal, Bucks
It would appear that not only are MPs above the law but that they also receive special treatment from the Inland Revenue as their 'perks' all seem to be tax free. The IR should be as diligent with MPs as it is with people like me.
- Beryl Rowley, Crawley, West Sussex
It's not morally right to claim these expenses. It goes to show why Jacqui Smith is truly in the government; to line her pockets and appease her ego. She comes across as an arrogant unlikable person. I think the problem with politicians in general today is trust, we have none. The pension of an MP after serving just 10 years is £13,750 a year. Any travel costs can be claimed as expenses. They are also given money to go towards a mortgage if they live outside their constituency. I think you should live in a constituency anyway if you are its MP! It’s a shame we can’t all be Politicians... But then who would we trust?
- Paul, London
Instead of blaming the MP's who claim the allowances that they are entitled to, blame the people who create the package of benefits that belong to an MP.
If this was the private sector and you were given an allowance to claim would anyone suggest you were wrong to claim it?
Its part of their package so either change their package or stop complaining!
- Vic Annells, Braintree UK
The continued reduction in tax paid on second homes kind of makes sense now though.
Overall I think Labour have done this country a huge dis-service on the housing front. I really hope that none of their children have to struggle with unrealistic house prices or flat-sharing well into their 30s / 40s as a result of the continued emphasis on profit making through the housing market.
Slightly off the subject, but when Labour came in they really should have renamed the right-to-buy scheme the right-to-profit-out-of-the-social-services scheme!
- Anon, London
Bring the army back from the four corners of the world, it's time we had a Military Coup!
- Ian, London
I am one of Dawn constitutions who has to commute to Wandsworth evry day on 2 underground trains and 1 bus each way. I am also disabled (back injury, Plantar Fasiitics and ME) spend at least 1-2 hours each way depending on train or bus delays. Can Dawn explain to me why she needs £22,000+ expenses when she does not even bother to turn up to meetings held in the community Kensal Green to be exact.
- Jasmine Hodge-Lake, Brent
Disgusting when young couples can hardly find the money for their huge mortgages, extortionate fares into London to pay on top of that. These spongers should be thrown out of government forthwith!
- Wooram, Alicante, Spain
Why is Dawn Butler allowed to claim this money if she is not entitled to it and who is responsible for paying it?
- John Watson, Newcastle, England
