MPs face backlash after vote on perks

Jul 5 2008 by William Green, The Journal

LABOUR MPs who voted to keep controversial taxpayer-funded allowances have been accused of having their “snouts in the trough” by Liberal Democrats.

Fourteen of the region’s 28 Labour MPs joined 158 other MPs – mostly from their own party - in rejecting calls to abolish the £24,000 annual budget to buy and kit out second homes during a Commons vote on Thursday.

They also included Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, North East Minister Nick Brown and Junior Housing Minister and Hartlepool MP Iain Wright.

But more than half of MPs, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, stayed away for the vote on proposals from a Commons committee – while Westminster’s anti-sleaze watchdog may launch its own review. MPs also killed off moves to allow external audits of allowances after uproar over claims for kitchens, bathrooms and plasma televisions – although the Commons authorities will audit 25% of MPs’ expenses internally every year.

And they approved a programme to get improved constituency offices at an additional cost to the taxpayer of up to £3.2m annually.

No Liberal Democrat MPs voted against calls for an overhaul of the additional cost allowance (ACA), also supported by Hexham’s Conservative MP Peter Atkinson.

Greg Stone, a Newcastle Lib Dem councillor, said: “Voters will be aghast that so many of the North East’s Labour MPs wish to protect their perks and keep their snouts in the trough.

“It is little wonder that the public have so little faith in politicians.”

But opponents of the external audit claimed it was ill thought out and would cost millions, and questioned plans to cut the ACA and introduce a £30 daily subsistence allowance.

Labour’s Sedgefield MP Phil Wilson said: “I thought the new system would be unworkable.

“I think it is only right that MPs are audited and I would want the National Audit Office to look at the best way of doing that through the House of Commons.”

He added he voted for a below-inflation pay rise due to current economic conditions and calls for wage restraint.

Blyth Valley’s Ronnie Campbell said an external audit would be expensive and accused Lib Dems of political opportunism.

“As far as I am concerned, my office is run well and I am quite happy as an MP to be audited as one of the 25% each year.

“And if I do something wrong, the gallows will be outside and I will be hanging from them,” added the Labour MP.

His colleague Dave Anderson, who represents Blaydon, said the overhaul would have been unfair to new MPs but questioned whether long-serving MPs should continue to claim the ACA.

Tory Hexham MP Peter Atkinson backed the reforms, saying: “It was to be a much more restricted and better policed ACA.”

But because he felt the vote would be a “stitch-up”, Mr Atkinson returned to his constituency ahead of visiting post offices threatened with closure.

New hope for formula's opponents

THE funding formula which sees Government cash diverted from deprived parts of the North East and sent to Scotland could be scrapped as economists prepare a detailed study.

This autumn the House of Lords will set up a committee to consider whether the 30-year-old Barnett formula is unfair to the North East.

Under spending rules laid down in 1978 Scotland currently receives an extra £647 per person each year than the North East.

But in Scotland the average pay is 95% of the UK average, while in the North East it is just 81%.

Critics have said the formula now only serves as "bribe" to Scottish voters at the expense of more deprived parts of the UK.

Lord (Joel) Barnett, who first set up the formula as the then Treasury Secretary, said deprived regions such as the North East had the most to lose under the system.

He has repeatedly urged the Government to think again, calling for urgent action "because if something isn’t seen to be done fairly soon, people in England will start to demand separation. That would be disastrous for the UK".

The ad-hoc Lords committee is not expected to report until next year, and the Government is under no obligation to accept or act on any recommendations.