Detailed breakdown of MP expenses.

cowboy said:
They've decided to become MPs and their place of work happens to be the House of Commons why should they be able to claim travel expenses when they've just changed the rules on contractors claiming travel expenses to their place of work?
Click to expand...
Actually no, their primary place of business is their constituency. Absolutely no different than the rules for contractors in my understanding.
 
dejongj said:
Actually no, their primary place of business is their constituency. Absolutely no different than the rules for contractors in my understanding.
Click to expand...
So why can't they all get the works minibus for their jaunts to the city?;)

If their primary place of business is their constituency why do they need a second home?
If I decided to work away from home I might be able to get lodge money from the company I am working for but not enough to rent a second home.
 
cowboy said:
They've decided to become MPs and their place of work happens to be the House of Commons why should they be able to claim travel expenses when they've just changed the rules on contractors claiming travel expenses to their place of work?
Click to expand...

Not saying I agree with it, but I think they probably have their constituency office as their place of work and that justifies the expenses in travelling to London.

Oops, too slow!
 
cowboy said:
So why can't they all get the works minibus for their jaunts to the city?;)

If their primary place of business is their constituency why do they need a second home?
If I decided to work away from home I might be able to get lodge money from the company I am working for but not enough to rent a second home.
Click to expand...
Or charge them more. Surely you factor the costs for staying away from your home into the rates that you are charging?
 
Maybe they should have a dedicated hostel for MPs to use while attending the HoP? Or abandon the draughty old place and build a new place (with suitable lodgings) somewhere rather cheaper to stay than central London!
 
Nod said:
Maybe they should have a dedicated hostel for MPs to use while attending the HoP? Or abandon the draughty old place and build a new place (with suitable lodgings) somewhere rather cheaper to stay than central London!
Click to expand...
I do have some sympathy for them. They work hours most normal employee wouldn't begin to comprehend. Having your own apartment in the area, even when you are just outside London does make sense and improves wellbeing. I do often stay in a apartment hotel in London, even though I'm only 30 miles away. I wished I kept my county hall apartment at times...
 
Nod said:
Maybe they should have a dedicated hostel for MPs to use while attending the HoP?
Click to expand...
BOOM!

That's why they don't.

It was (briefly) considered after the last expenses scandal and was reasoned that the security costs would be outrageous.

A new building with included lodging - thus reducing the costs of two sets of security - might make sense, but the cost of building it would cause Daily Express public outrage.
 
dejongj said:
I do have some sympathy for them. They work hours most normal employee wouldn't begin to comprehend. Having your own apartment in the area, even when you are just outside London does make sense and improves wellbeing. I do often stay in a apartment hotel in London, even though I'm only 30 miles away. I wished I kept my county hall apartment at times...
Click to expand...

Its a pity that the government doesn't see it that way for other employees though.
To be eligible for universal credit you have to be willing to take employment up to 90 minutes travelling time each way from your place of residence, covered by your own money out of the £6.70 minimum wage.

How far from parliament could a person travel in 90 minutes using public transport?
They would probably be using public transport as I don't think a private helicopter would be used if they had to pay for it themselves ;);):D
 
cowboy said:
Its a pity that the government doesn't see it that way for other employees though.
To be eligible for universal credit you have to be willing to take employment up to 90 minutes travelling time each way from your place of residence, covered by your own money out of the £6.70 minimum wage.

How far from parliament could a person travel in 90 minutes using public transport?
They would probably be using public transport as I don't think a private helicopter would be used if they had to pay for it themselves ;);):D
Click to expand...
You just aren't comparing like for like and quote selectively...

If any claimant does not take up a job within the 90 minute travelling limitation, Jobcentre
advisers must explore the reason behind the claimant not taking up the job to establish
whether they had “good reason” to do so. The guidance on good reason sets out a non-
exhaustive list of circumstances which should be considered when deciding this. This includes
whether the claimant had caring responsibilities, and whether there are unavoidable expenses,
such as travel or child care costs, which would be incurred if they amount to an unreasonably
high proportion of the income they would have received from the job in question.
Click to expand...

90 minutes is a maximum, 180 minute commute in London can cost as little at £6.50. Still 1/8 of a days work but possible classed are fitting within the criteria. 90 minutes could also mean for me taking the west coast mainline at a cost of £127, more than it costs to do earn at that level in the job market, therefore unreasonable.

It also assumes a normal working day, not one that starts at 7-8 am and easily goes on to 23-01 at night. Sure not every night but it is not unusual. I just don't think it is comparable levels of work, not travel patterns.
 
dejongj said:
You just aren't comparing like for like and quote selectively...



90 minutes is a maximum, 180 minute commute in London can cost as little at £6.50. Still 1/8 of a days work but possible classed are fitting within the criteria. 90 minutes could also mean for me taking the west coast mainline at a cost of £127, more than it costs to do earn at that level in the job market, therefore unreasonable.

It also assumes a normal working day, not one that starts at 7-8 am and easily goes on to 23-01 at night. Sure not every night but it is not unusual. I just don't think it is comparable levels of work, not travel patterns.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't get this bit, I quoted your post in its entirety.

How would you like me to compare like for like?
From the uk parliament website
What are the sitting (meeting) hours of the House of Commons?

Mondays 2.30-10.30pm

Tuesdays and Wednesdays 11.30am-7.30pm

Thursdays 9.30am-5.30pm

Sitting Fridays 9.30am-3pm


We could go down one of the other taxpayer funded professions such as the junior doctors.

The point I am trying to make is that the MPs are onto a good thing, they can claim expenses for just about everything, get a very good pension once they are voted out of office as well as getting a very good rate of pay.
They have a relatively easy life in their employment, its not like they do any manual labour or work long hours regularly.
 
Those hours ignore time spent dealing with constituency issues.
I earn more than my MP, but with shorter hours, less stress and not facing public criticism for everything I do.
Aside from the pension, I don't think they're especially well paid.
 
Personally I believe MP's are paid bordering on the low side (given the intelligence and hard work I'd like to see tackling the nations problems). However, their total benefits package is generous by most standards.

It'd be ok if the average MP actually worked hard for above average hours, but many of them don't, some of them have appalling attendance records.

Some work tirelessly for their constituents (part of the salary) some sit on multiple committees in the house (which earns them extra), some put together a professional team to support them, some just hire the missus (effectively using their expenses as additional family income). Some rent a room in London, some buy a large house from which they'll profit hugely.

The actual earnings then can vary massively, but then so does the amount of work done, and just like in real life, there's no direct correlation no matter how much people would like to believe there is.
 
cowboy said:
Sorry I don't get this bit, I quoted your post in its entirety.

How would you like me to compare like for like?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a point to the discussion when you compare the work of an MP as equal to someone on universal credits and think that is a good and valid comparison.

cowboy said:
From the uk parliament website
What are the sitting (meeting) hours of the House of Commons?

Mondays 2.30-10.30pm

Tuesdays and Wednesdays 11.30am-7.30pm

Thursdays 9.30am-5.30pm

Sitting Fridays 9.30am-3pm


We could go down one of the other taxpayer funded professions such as the junior doctors.

The point I am trying to make is that the MPs are onto a good thing, they can claim expenses for just about everything, get a very good pension once they are voted out of office as well as getting a very good rate of pay.
They have a relatively easy life in their employment, its not like they do any manual labour or work long hours regularly.
Click to expand...
There is a lot more to the job than meetings in the house of commons ;) A lot more...

Llamaman said:
Those hours ignore time spent dealing with constituency issues.
I earn more than my MP, but with shorter hours, less stress and not facing public criticism for everything I do.
Aside from the pension, I don't think they're especially well paid.
Click to expand...
Fully agreed.
 
dejongj said:
I don't think there is a point to the discussion when you compare the work of an MP as equal to someone on universal credits and think that is a good and valid comparison.

Snip.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the work I was comparing the travelling expense claims and as both are paid for by the taxpayer I think they should both be entitled to the same.

If an MP can claim a travelling to work expense then everyone should be able to. <That was the point I was trying to get across.
The government has now changed to tax rules so that contractors using their own transport cannot claim tax relief.
 
cowboy said:
I wasn't comparing the work I was comparing the travelling expense claims and as both are paid for by the taxpayer I think they should both be entitled to the same.

If an MP can claim a travelling to work expense then everyone should be able to. <That was the point I was trying to get across.
The government has now changed to tax rules so that contractors using their own transport cannot claim tax relief.
Click to expand...

If that were made the rule you'd never get an MP north of Watford, it costs my MP around £200 each way to travel up and down to London. He doesn't have a choice, he must represent the constituency in WM and he must be available for the people he represents in the constituency (surgeries). No way could he afford that on an MPs salary even if he and others in his party weren't giving their last pay rise to charity.
 
dan_yell said:
Mine spent £24k

he might spend a bit less if he listened to his constituents and replied by email, rather than wasting paper, envelopes, postage etc replying by letter to everything. But at least saves money by ignoring any further comments they may send them on the matter.

I personally do not think that MPs should be able to claim for travel to London if they live in the South East or other commutable area - we all pay for our own travel to get to work every day - so why don't they?
Click to expand...

Because their base pay is so very very low for a public servant so they need the help. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
cowboy said:
I wasn't comparing the work I was comparing the travelling expense claims and as both are paid for by the taxpayer I think they should both be entitled to the same.

If an MP can claim a travelling to work expense then everyone should be able to. <That was the point I was trying to get across.
The government has now changed to tax rules so that contractors using their own transport cannot claim tax relief.
Click to expand...
I thought we covered the work one ages ago. It has all to do with the permanent place of work. The constituency is the permanent place of work, travel to other locations can be expensed. No different for you, myself or anyone else.

What was changed for contractors? I thought they tightened up on those who are inside IR35, go through an umbrella company, and therefore you can reasonably argue that their place of work is their permanent place of work. If they have to go to another location then either the organisation they work for reimburses them, and if it is less than the HMRC subsistence rates than they can claim relief on the difference just like anyone else can.

PS. I happily stand correct on those points, so if you got some supporting evidence on how/when it has changed I would really appreciate you sharing it.
 
cowboy said:
They have a relatively easy life in their employment, its not like they do any manual labour or work long hours regularly.
Click to expand...

Having to listen to DC drone on could be considered torture never mind hard labour but on the long hours point, you quoted WM sitting hours but you don't mention all the other stuff that needs doing. In HoC there are also many select committees, policies that need to be pursued. Outside Westminster MPs deal with their constituencies, party matters, lobbyists. All in all MPs work on average a 69 hour week.
 
dejongj said:
I thought we covered the work one ages ago. It has all to do with the permanent place of work. The constituency is the permanent place of work, travel to other locations can be expensed. No different for you, myself or anyone else.

What was changed for contractors? I thought they tightened up on those who are inside IR35, go through an umbrella company, and therefore you can reasonably argue that their place of work is their permanent place of work. If they have to go to another location then either the organisation they work for reimburses them, and if it is less than the HMRC subsistence rates than they can claim relief on the difference just like anyone else can.

PS. I happily stand correct on those points, so if you got some supporting evidence on how/when it has changed I would really appreciate you sharing it.
Click to expand...

I'm not to sure on the ins and out of it all. I got an email from the company I was working for at the time informing me I wouldn't be able to claim travel or subsistence allowance as from the end of this tax year due to a change/tightening up of government regulations.
 
cowboy said:
I'm not to sure on the ins and out of it all. I got an email from the company I was working for at the time informing me I wouldn't be able to claim travel or subsistence allowance as from the end of this tax year due to a change/tightening up of government regulations.
Click to expand...
I thought the last change was actually in favour of employees (travelling to site) with many companies complaining it'd ruin them.

I'll see if I can dig up the change.
 
cowboy said:
I'm not to sure on the ins and out of it all. I got an email from the company I was working for at the time informing me I wouldn't be able to claim travel or subsistence allowance as from the end of this tax year due to a change/tightening up of government regulations.
Click to expand...
I've found this, which is probably what you meant.

However, that's all about normal place of work, and how subcontractors were taking advantage of the rules in the past.

Travelling to somewhere other than the normal place of work does attract expenses for all of us, you, me and our MP's.
 
Last edited:
The rules do need tightening up. I work through an umbrella company at the moment and they were very keen for me to claim travel and subsistence and were quite shocked when I refused.
 
Llamaman said:
The rules do need tightening up. I work through an umbrella company at the moment and they were very keen for me to claim travel and subsistence and were quite shocked when I refused.
Click to expand...
The rules have changed, see the link in my post above.
 
Phil V said:
I've found this, which is probably what you meant.

However, that's all about normal place of work, and how subcontractors were taking advantage of the rules in the past.

Travelling to somewhere other than the normal place of work does attract expenses for all of us, you, me and our MP's.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Exactly as I described earlier. No real change other than an alignment for those inside IR35 that they no longer can claim to their permanent place of work. They can still request relief on any other journey which is incurred wholly for business purposes. Absolutely fair and aligned with everyone else inckuding MPs
 
just now looked at 2014-2015.... I make the total to be.. £104.6m.
 
Phil V said:
I've found this, which is probably what you meant.

However, that's all about normal place of work, and how subcontractors were taking advantage of the rules in the past.

Travelling to somewhere other than the normal place of work does attract expenses for all of us, you, me and our MP's.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that.
That probably explains why agency workers can now get all permanent employee benefits after twelve weeks.
 
Phil V said:
The rules have changed, see the link in my post above.
Click to expand...
They're not in effect yet though. Still 3 weeks to go (so people will be expensing their annual travelcard now!), and my conversation with the umbrella was 3 months ago, before they were thinking about the changes.

I was using it as a personal example of how dodgy the operators of such companies are (and I'm with a 'respectable' one!), and why the changes were necessary. In the past I've avoided using them but my current client didn't want me on their payroll.
 
cowboy said:
Cheers for that.
That probably explains why agency workers can now get all permanent employee benefits after twelve weeks.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that wonderful change that amended my contract and reduced my overtime rate.
Stupid Government committee hadn't thought about how the changes would effect existing contracts and gave us all a paycut.
Luckily I was able to renegotiate with my client, but I suspect many weren't and lost out.
Beware of unintended consequences!
 
cowboy said:
Cheers for that.
That probably explains why agency workers can now get all permanent employee benefits after twelve weeks.
Click to expand...
And it's not all benefits either! The two you'd actually want - sick pay and pensions - are excluded.
 
Apparently he said he will repay it 'as soon as possible'.

Maybe the next time he puts in a claim?
 
kendo1 said:
Apparently he said he will repay it 'as soon as possible'.

Maybe the next time he puts in a claim?
Click to expand...
I have some sympathy for that. Some may have that kind of money just sitting around doing nothing, but others, especially in relation to expenses, it would cause some issues when a bill of that size comes in when you aren't expecting it.
 
Indeed, having it sat around would give the impression you knew the claims were dodgy and were keeping a provision aside just in case you got clobbered.
 
Llamaman said:
Indeed, having it sat around would give the impression you knew the claims were dodgy and were keeping a provision aside just in case you got clobbered.
Click to expand...

It would be as well to spend it just in case- maybe on a holiday and champagne...

danczuk.jpg
 
.. and maybe a bit of alimony. :)
 
I'm shocked, truly shocked, to discover that our elected representatives take so much on top of their already excessive salaries. :jawdrop:

Only not a lot. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top