BRACKNELL MP REJECTS REFORM OF EXPENSES (Bracknell Liberal Democrats)

Bracknell Liberal Democrats <info@bracknelllibdems.org.uk>

BRACKNELL MP REJECTS REFORM OF EXPENSES

July 10, 2008 5:20 PM

BRACKNELL MP REJECTS REFORM OF EXPENSES

MacKay votes against party line and refuses to support rule changes

A review by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee, which had recommended an end to the so-called 'John Lewis list' and the replacement of the Additional Cost Allowance (ACA), was rejected by MPs last week in favour of keeping the existing totally discredited arrangements for the payment of MPs' expenses.

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Tory leadership had welcomed the adoption of Committee's recommendations as a way of demonstrating to the public that MPs could put their own house in order. Regrettably most Labour MPs who voted, in cluding more than 30 government ministers, chose to ignore the Prime Minister's support for the recommendations and voted them down with the support of about 30 Tory MPs, including Andrew MacKay and his wife, Julie Kirkbride MP.

As a result of the vote, the Additional Cost Allowance worth £24,000, to cover living expenses near Parliament and running a second home was retained in favour of an overnight expenses allowance of £19,600 and a £30 daily subsistence rate. Other curbs to tighten up the rules on MPs who live together and plans for an annual external audit of expenses in favour of an internal financial check every four years were also rejected.

Commenting on Andrew MacKay's decision to oppose the changes, Lib-Dem Parliamentary Spokesperson, Ray Earwicker said 'he was very disappointed with Mr. MacKay's decision not to support the proposed measures, which offered much greater transparency. He was even more surprised that Mr MacKay, as a supposedly close adviser to David Cameron, had chosen not to follow the Party line and he would be seeking an explanation from him for the position he had taken.

The average pay and allowances of MPs was now in the region of £140,000 a year and it was undeniable that a more robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances was needed as a matter of urgency.'