If there is one thing that has not been properly debated during the on-going row over MPs’ allowances, it is what it is proper to use that money for and what it is not.
This will of course be the chief subject of the review that is currently on-going both in Westminister and Cardiff Bay but I think we can set down some important principles.
Firstly, it is the case that the role of an MP is not really directly comparable with any other job. They are expected (simultaneously in many cases) to be in two or more places at the same time, often hundreds of miles apart. They have a constituency role which means that they need an office, staff and a place to live in the area they represent and all the costs that are associated with that, and they need to be in London to do their job in the House of Commons. That involves expenses for accomodation, travel and staff there as well.
The members’ allowances system is designed to accomodate those needs and to ensure that the appropriate support is in place so that the MP can do his or her job. An MP must meet the day to day living costs that we all face themselves but additional, reasonable and legitimate costs that are needed to do their job should be reimbursed in the same way as I would expect them to be for any other job.
What the system should not accomodate however is the sort of systematic fraud that we have seen with a very small minority of MPs nor should it be the salary supplement that some clearly think it is. It is not there to enrich the Member of Parliament in any way whatsoever. That is why on principle I do not agree with mortgage subsidies and believe that a proper accounting system should be in place that insists on receipts for everything and sets out clear and unequivocal rules. It is also essential that there is absolute transparency and accountabiliy.
Parliament has fallen down substantially on most of these requirements and it must be the first job of the new Speaker to sort that out. If he or she does not do so then the legitimacy of our political system will be in doubt.
What does muddy the waters is those groups who should know better latching onto the very legitimate outrage about expenses to make their own point or to call into doubt what appears on the face of it to be valid expenditure. One such group is the Taxpayers Alliance who are famous for knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Some MPs have used their allowances to fund extensive and in some cases wide-ranging research to inform and assist them in their work. Dai Havard MP for example paid Cardiff University £4,000 for a study on ‘Common Health Conditions in Merthyr Tydfil’. He and Huw Irranca Davies have also used their allowances to commission work off the Bevan Foundation on social issues that have a direct bearing on their work as an MP. All of that in my view is legitimate.
There is also a question mark as to whether allowances should be used to fund training for staff. The Taxpayers’ Alliance for example have condemned the use of public money to train Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price’s constituency staff in public relation skills. I believe other MPs have also used public money to train their staff, which has also been questioned.
If there is one thing I have learnt in my ten years as an Assembly Member it is that any elected member is only as good as the staff he or she employs. These staff have a multi-faceted role and their duties include assisting the MP or AM with casework, doing research, organising his or her diary and undertaking press and public relations work on his or her behalf amongst many other tasks. All of that is legitimate and if they are to do the work properly then they need training and support just like any other employee.
I have recently used my allowances to pay to train two of my staff on welfare benefits, which are not devolved but nevertheless forms a substantial part of my casework. The various Government departments recognise this by providing helpline numbers for AMs. This training has been put to good use recently when one staff member successfully represented constituents in two separate appeal hearings.
Parliamentarians are employers like every other and I believe that it is the duty of every good employer to develop their staff to get the most out of them but also to improve their opportunities to better themselves and enjoy a more fulfilling work life.
In this particular instance therefore I think that the Taxpayers’ Alliance are wrong. The use of public money to pay for the training and development of publicly funded staff is not just legitimate, it is a duty.
Related posts:
