The real cost of our MPs: £1m a day

They soak up £366m a year, their workload’s halved and expense claims have doubled. It’s time to start axing MPs, says David Craig

LAST UPDATED AT 10:40 ON Thu 29 May 2008

Now that they've been caught fiddling their expenses, our MPs have come up with new and more subtle ways of filling their bank accounts. First, they want us to give them each about £23,000 a year, tax-free, for their supposed 'expenses' without having to show any receipts. Second, in exchange for allowing a supposedly ‘independent’ body to set their salaries, they are demanding a pay increase of around £15,000 a year.

Yet while pleading poverty, our MPs seem to forget that they already receive more than £60,000 a year for just 34 weeks’ work and enjoy the most generous pension scheme in Britain. An ordinary person would have to put an incredible £50,000 each year into their pension savings to receive the same pension benefits as an MP.

If our MPs were hugely overworked, their massive remuneration might be justified. However, each year they actually have less and less to do.

When this Government swept to power in May 1997, less than half our legislation was initiated and authored in the EU. By 2001 this had reached 55 per cent and, according to an answer given in 2007 in the German parliament (the UK Government has refused to provide the same information), 84 per cent of their legislation now comes directly from the EU.

Because our Prime Minister has rushed into signing the EU Constitution-by-another-name without asking our permission, more powers will soon move to Brussels, leaving even less work for our MPs.

If you owned a corner shop and you lost more than half of your customers, you might consider reducing your staff and even paying yourself slightly less. Yet our leaders have never contemplated cutting their numbers to match their greatly reduced workload.

In the last five years alone, the amount of money our MPs have taken in salaries and expenses has gone up by a satisfying (for them) 64 per cent, from less than £100m in 2001–02 to over £155m in 2006–07, while the number of expense claims submitted by MPs has almost doubled from just over 30,000 a year to close to 60,000. At the same time, the number of staff employed to help our MPs do less and less work has gone up from around 1,800 to over 2,500.

In addition to the money paid directly to MPs for salaries and expenses, we also pay another £210m a year for administration, support services and subsidised food and drink at Westminster.

The total cost to us of our MPs is now more than £366m a year. If we reduced their numbers to match the halving of their workload, we could save around £180m a year. We could then shove the remainder back into Westminster, sell off their luxurious overspill quarters in Portcullis House and use the money raised to improve living standards of the million poorest pensioners. · 

Comments

The USA manages to get by with only 435 congressmen (women?). Simple solution is to abolish all Scottish and Welsh seats. They have their own assemblies so do not need to sit at Westminster as well.

Gee, welcome to the real world of governance by lawyers, purveyors of promises and lies.

I won't comment on Mr. Shields suggestion which supports an EU/Brussels legislative control of the UK.

The EU was a great idea when it was promoted to unify European countries that had fought one another for centuries for their monarchs. However the people who were monarchs still OWN everything. They now sit in boardrooms controlling the price of foodstuffs, oil and gas and they CONTROL the markets from their offshore accounts.

Since the bulk of our laws are initiated in Brussels, does anyone know why we actually need MPs? It is impossible to have a debate on this because of the huge vested interests involved in Parliament itself and in the media. Having given away our sovereignty (possibly not a bad thing, seeing the track record of our governments for the past 80 years) we should now retire our Parliament and set up a regional Assembly for England, on the lines of those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whose focus is solely on implementing Brussels legislation.

I've long felt that the simplest solution to this conundrum would be to only return to Parliament a fraction of the MPs actually elected in proportion to the turnout. So if the total number of MPs is about 650, but only 60% of the electorate vote, only 60% of the 650 should actually go to Parliament - who actually goes will depend on the proportion of votes cast for each party, and those MPs with the highest personal vote in each party get to take their seats. This would encourage politicians to take a little more notice of their electorates, and give effect to those who vote for "none of the above". And save us all massive amounts of dosh.

Comments are now closed on this article