Anger over plan to give MPs £23,000 grant
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Proposals to pay MPs £23,000 a year on top of their salaries to help them avoid embarrassing disclosures over their expenses provoked anger, as campaigners labelled them a "sneaky" move that would prevent the system becoming more transparent.
A proposed block grant would replace the detailed claims MPs can make from the public purse to reimburse them for spending on their second homes.
The plans would bring backbenchers' automatic annual income to more than £84,000 and end the need for them to submit receipts showing how their claims under the Additional Costs Allowance have been spent.
The House of Commons authorities have just lost a three-year court battle to prevent disclosure of details of spending on MPs' second homes under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.
When the invoices were finally published last week, they showed the taxpayer bought a mock Tudor gable for John Prescott's home in Hull, that Peter Mandelson spent nearly £3,000 on a shower and that Tony and Cherie Blair were threatened with bailiffs over an unpaid water bill.
The Commons Estimates Committee, chaired by Michael Martin, the Speaker, is looking at a series of options, although the lump sum idea is understood to be the preferred choice.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said that it would be "disgraceful" if MPs attempted to subvert the FoI Act and to undermine the recent court ruling against the Commons.
He said: "It would mean running to the shadows when it comes to accountability and give the green light to spending public money on items that aren't connected to their duties."
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "This is a sneaky suggestion that is aimed squarely at obstructing hard-won transparency in MPs' expenses. People have a right to see how their representatives spend their taxes."
A spokeswoman for the committee said its report on expenses reform had not been completed.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments