Tonight:
5°c
Public fury may kill MPs' clock-on cash
Paul Waugh23 Apr 2009
Gordon Brown's plan to give MPs a "clocking-in" allowance was in doubt today after Britain's anti-sleaze boss said the public would not tolerate it.
Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, warned that voters would not back any system where politicians were paid without providing receipts.
His remarks, on the day the committee launched its independent review of MPs' ex-penses, came as David Cameron and Nick Clegg came out firmly against the Prime Minister's proposal for a daily Westminster attendance allowance.
The Tory and Lib-Dem leaders signalled that their parties would vote against Mr Brown's scheme when it is put to a Commons vote next week. With a chunk of Labour backbenchers also unhappy at the plan, the vote is now on a knife-edge.
Sir Christopher said today he was "not surprised" that last night's meeting between Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg broke up without agreement. "The tide of public fury about what's been going on ex-penses is overwhelming," he told Radio 4's Today programme.
He said the problems with Mr Brown's proposals proved why an independent body needed to look carefully at the system. His committee is set to report before the end of the year.
Both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg feared possible abuse of a "clocking-in" system and felt that MPs should not be paid simply for turning up to work. Both think such a system would be less transparent, as it would not require receipts.
Tory sources said the meeting was "hopeless" as Mr Brown failed to come up with a daily rate figure and gave no assurances on prevention of abuses.
Mr Cameron laid out his own receipt-based proposals to clean up Westminster expenses.
He said: "I'd have a transparent allowance - no more patio heaters, no more bath plugs, certainly no pornography. People want a cleaned-up system."
Reader views (13)
As was suggested on question Time [BBC last night] pay them for turning up but fine them for non-attendance?
The non-attendance fine being the larger amount or double.
With NO excuses?
- P. C., rainham. essex., 24/04/2009 08:21
Report abuse
I think they should 'clock-on' I also think their basic pay sshould be cut to £25000pa. and the rest made up accoring to the number of days they attend. With an allowance of 30 days for holidays; and if they don't like it, see what they'd earn in the real world
- Jeremiah, London, 23/04/2009 16:53
Report abuse
Why should they claim for food and cleaning goods.If they were at home would they not eat and wash.If they loose the bath plug at home,would they not just buy one themselves.They have abused their powers and now they need to be watched.Ordinary taxpayers,being their employer,should decide how much they are allowed.What I can garantee,is these people with soon be looking for other ways to support their lifestyle.They need to realise they are only public servants,nothing more.
- David, london, 23/04/2009 16:05
Report abuse
Mark in Vauxhall - MPs should have the same system of expenses that most corporations do i.e. fixed limits for food and lodgings, receipts required and no free porn. They seem incapable of implementing such a system as it will not benefit them financially.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 23/04/2009 15:40
Report abuse
The gravy train rolls on.
- Rosie, watford, 23/04/2009 15:05
Report abuse
Could all of the posters possibly suggest an alternative way to cover the costs of MPs from outside of London when they are in town?
It's ridiculous to suggest that this is "clock-on cash" - it's remuneration to cover expenses associated with accommodation, food, and incidental costs when they are away from their constituency home and in London, and it's absolutely just and proper that these costs are covered in some way. Most private organisations pay something similar to their staff when away (just Google 'per diems') - although typically per diems do not cover accommodation, which is expensed separately.
MPs are there to lead our country. We can either pay a salary and package that reflects this and attracts the right talent, or we can cut their package back and end up with a load of corrupt MPs who take backhanders to supplement their meagre pay, or other people who simply don't have the skills for the job.
I know people who I know for a fact would make an excellent MP, but do not step forward because they would be, in effect, taking a pay cut, and have their entire lives open to scrutiny and media coverage, dealing with petty bickers over matters such as this - they simply don't think it's worth it.
You think there are crap MPs now? Just see what 'talent' ends up in the House of Commons if you start slashing their package.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 23/04/2009 14:42
Report abuse
this idea of being paid to go to work, I thought that was what my wages were for. but I like the idea of a bonus to turn up. it was paid in london when it snowed, we should all get it, perhaps less if it rains.
ken moody
sheffield
yorkshire
- Ken Moody, sheffield, 23/04/2009 12:44
Report abuse
Mind boggling why MPs should be paid to turn up to work. Are they not paid a salary? Like all employees in the country, why should they not be reimbursed their travel expense with receipts??
- Pt, London, 23/04/2009 12:05
Report abuse
They get paid to turn up - its their job. If they dont turn up their pay should be docked. Simple.
They get paid more than enough to live on and should not have expense accounts. If they cant manage on their wage they should do something else.
- Rob, Letchworth, 23/04/2009 11:23
Report abuse
The problem is that MP's wholly regard their expenses as part-and-parcel of their salary entitlement - obviously £64,500 p.a. is not enough for those grubby imbeciles who are NOT in the House of Conmen to represent the interests of Joe Public - they are there to add to the spin and waffle and to line their own bulging pockets at every turn.
ABOLISH ALL MP's EXPENSES.
KICK THEM OUT OF THE SECOND HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER AT GREAT EXPENSE. SELL THE PROPERTIES AND RETURN THE CASH TO THE TAXPAYER.
RECOUP ALL THE NEW FITTED KITCHENS, LUXURY BATHROOM SUITES, BATHPLUGS, LIGHTBULBS, PLASMA TELEVISIONS AND COUNCIL TAX AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO SKY TV WHICH MP's HAVE WANGLED OUT OF THE TAXPAYER.
If muppets want the glory of being an MP they get a salary and that is it - just like Joe Public is expected to do if they are fortunate enough to secure a job. They are paid good money to do a job as MP.
In fact, MP's salary should be capped at £400 per week.
If that were the case, the House of Conmen would miraculously empty overnight.
What a splendid idea!!
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe/Lancaster, 23/04/2009 10:59
Report abuse
Can someone please tell me why MPs cannot use Portcullis House to stay while in London, and if not there, why not Admiralty Arch?
In that way the expenses need not be paid at all, with utilities and council tax and telephone and internet access etc all-found in a purpose-built government building.
WHY DO THEY NEED TO BE GIVEN ALLOWANCES WHEN THE SOLUTION IS THERE. IT'S A PITY MRS THATCHER DIDN'T HAVE A PURPOSE-BUILT BUILDING IN THE DAYS WHEN SHE PROPOSED THE CURRENT SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!
- Pam, London, 23/04/2009 10:44
Report abuse
How dare Gordon Brown suggest rewarding MPs for merely "turning up at Westminster". They are already grossly overpaid for what has proven to be a very shoddy service. It is an insult to tax payers to suggest such a gimmick.
- R.F., Yorks, UK, 23/04/2009 10:40
Report abuse
They are paid a set salary, have a very generous pension scheme - that should be enough. They have just awarded themselves a pay rise! As for the expenses, make it like any other private company - all receipts have to be submitted. Why should they be any different to the rest of us. We are suffering, taking pay cuts, being made redundant and told we are lucky to have our jobs if we even ask for a pay rise/bonus - they should be in the same position.
- Jk, London, 23/04/2009 10:37
Report abuse
