MPs' Expenses
Rod Liddle wrote a scathing piece for the Sunday Times yesterday - accusing MPs of 'cashing in again' as the rules governing their expenses claims were 'relaxed' by IPSA - the expenses watchdog.
See post dated 25 March 2011 - 'Public Watchdog Muzzled by MPs'.
But even within the existing rules there are scandalous practices - which simply would not be tolerated in any other walk of life.
For example - on housing costs - an MP who may have bought a second London property with the old housing allowance - is not required to live in that property under the new regime.
Even though it was purchased and maintained with public money - the MP is entitled to hold on to the property and even rent it out to a third party.
Whilst helping themselves to the housing allowance under the new, 'improved' expenses regime - which is worth up to £20,000 a year.
Now how can that be a legitimate use of public money?
MPs receive free housing for years and then are entitled to keep and even rent out the capital asset - which has been paid for by the taxpayer.
The only fair thing to do would be to require MPs in this position to forego any further housing allowances - or sell the property bought with public funds - and return the proceeds to the public purse.
Come to think of it - that's what I would also call - a pain free cut.
See post dated 25 March 2011 - 'Public Watchdog Muzzled by MPs'.
But even within the existing rules there are scandalous practices - which simply would not be tolerated in any other walk of life.
For example - on housing costs - an MP who may have bought a second London property with the old housing allowance - is not required to live in that property under the new regime.
Even though it was purchased and maintained with public money - the MP is entitled to hold on to the property and even rent it out to a third party.
Whilst helping themselves to the housing allowance under the new, 'improved' expenses regime - which is worth up to £20,000 a year.
Now how can that be a legitimate use of public money?
MPs receive free housing for years and then are entitled to keep and even rent out the capital asset - which has been paid for by the taxpayer.
The only fair thing to do would be to require MPs in this position to forego any further housing allowances - or sell the property bought with public funds - and return the proceeds to the public purse.
Come to think of it - that's what I would also call - a pain free cut.
