At the weekend I agreed to take part on a Radio 5 Live discussion on MP’s allowances and the funding of accommodation in London through the Additional Cost Allowance (A.C.A.).  Now I don’t claim the ACA for a London flat as I commute back to Reading almost every night, but I have never criticised MPs who do as the vast majority of my colleagues live in, and represent constituencies well beyond commuting distance.  I pointed out to the interviewer that if the rules were to be changed to get rid of the ACA then something else would have to replace it and that there are no easy solutions.

As I see it there are only three alternative options.   MPs could be put up in central London hotels three or four nights a week, which would certainly cost more than the average amount now claimed under the ACA.  The House of Commons could buy 600 central London apartments and make them available to MPs when Parliament was sitting but these wouldn’t come cheap, or MPs could be required to fund their London accommodation out of their own salaries.  If the Commons authorities decide to go down this route then there would clearly be a case for salaries to rise to cover these costs.  

In the course of the radio interview I pointed out that those of us who were full-time MPs earned considerably less than the £100,000 plus paid to chief executives of local councils in our constituencies and less than secondary school head teachers.  In the time honoured manner of the national press this entirely accurate and non-controversial comment was seized upon by some of the national newspapers and twisted to make it look as if MPs were demanding £100,000 salaries. I suppose I was naive to think that it is possible to have an intelligent debate in the current climate about MPs’ pay and allowances.

It is worth repeating for the record what I believe should happen.  Firstly, all MPs should be forced to work full-time for their £61,000 a year salary and outside business interests and directorships should be banned.  Currently 25% of MPs, most of them Conservatives, are pursuing parallel careers in the City, the law courts or as company directors.  This must be stopped as representing 70,000 constituents is a full time job.  Secondly, there should be a centrally administered budget to employ staff working for MPs in either their constituency or Westminster offices.  These staff should be paid a proper rate for the job and MPs should no longer manage their own payroll.  This would ensure the scandal of Derek Conway employing his family members to do next to no work could never be repeated.  Thirdly, the budget should reflect the needs of the constituency and allow for sufficient staff to handle varying amounts of casework and the considerable variations in the costs of renting accessible office space.

In many ways South East MPs in urban seats face the greatest pressures on our budgets with huge caseloads, expensive rents and no London weighting allowance.  Many of us end up at the end of the year paying out from our own salaries in order to cover wages and office rents.  The current system is unsatisfactory and in need of reform but not always for the reasons you might read about in some of our national newspapers. 

I also have no doubt that those people who are quickest to attack MPs allowances would be the first to criticise if their own MP didn’t employ sufficient staff to answer their letters or take up their issues.