The TaxPayers' Alliance - Media Coverage

Daily Telegraph: £69,000 pay-off for loser Livingstone

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Ken Livingstone is in line for a £69,000 pay-off from the taxpayer after being ousted as mayor of London.
He is entitled to claim the "resettlement grant" to help him adjust to life out of office after being defeated by Boris Johnson last week.

The 62-year-old former mayor, who formally left office at midnight on Sunday after eight years in the job, can claim half his annual £137,579 salary.

Under Treasury rules announced quietly this year, the first £30,000 will not be taxed.

Matthew Elliot, the chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliancethe TaxPayers' Alliance, said last night: "There is no reason why Ken Livingstone should receive a penny from taxpayers.

"He earned a generous salary as mayor, knew the date he was up for re-election, so should have planned a financial buffer in case he lost.

"The margin of Boris Johnson's victory shows that Londoners are pleased to see the back of Ken Livingstone, so they won't be pleased to hear that he's receiving a golden goodbye as a reward for his failure in office."

The 25-member London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor's work and approves his £13 billion budget, voted in March to bring settlements for London politicians into line with those for MPs and members of the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Two Liberal Democrat assembly members are entitled to pay-offs of around £25,000.

An assembly spokesman said the pay-offs were justified and had been recommended by the independent Senior Salary Review Body.

Mr Livingstone has joked about replacing Mr Johnson as a well-paid after-dinner speaker and also indicated that he plans to write his autobiography, which could lead to a lucrative publishing deal.

Daily Express: SECRET 25% PAY RISE FOR MPS

By Macer Hall, Political Editor

MPs are secretly plotting to award themselves a pay rise of up to £15,000 a year, it was revealed last night.

It would give backbenchers a stunning 25 per cent increase, taking their salaries to more than £75,000.

The lavish rise would come on top of the already soaring figure for perks and expenses at Westminster.

Millions of households struggling with a tide of spiralling bills will be appalled, with the news coming just a day after the Prime Minister claimed to be “feeling the hurt” of hard-pressed families.

Critics of the Westminster gravy train were also disgusted by the latest pay demand from MPs. Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers are really feeling the pinch from rising food and fuel prices, higher taxes and bigger mortgages, so greedy MPs should not be imposing extra burdens on the public purse.

“This pay hike is massively out of line with the rises the Government has imposed on teachers, nurses and police officers.”

Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, a leading campaigner against Westminster sleaze, said: “This sounds quite wrong. There needs to be an independent assessment.

“This sounds like an attempt to accumulate as much money as possible before the barrier comes down.”

The secret pay plan for MPs, who currently earn £61,820 a year following an increase last month, was disclosed by Commons sources.

It is understood that members of the Commons Commission, a committee of senior MPs headed by Speaker Michael Martin, are pressing for the deal.

They want the money as “compensation” for finally surrendering control of their pay and pensions to an independent panel. A forthcoming review is expected to recommend that MPs’ pay is set annually by the Senior Salaries Review Board rather than the Commons.

It will also look at the gold-plated final salary pension scheme, among the most generous in the world. But many members are understood to want to guarantee themselves one more big pay rise.

This proposed increase, however, is separate from other plans to overhaul the MPs’ remuneration package. Another demand is for a £23,000 pay rise in return for giving up the controversial additional costs to fund their second homes. Taken together, both rises would take a backbencher’s salary to nearly £100,000.

An alternative plan is for a £125-a-day handout for simply turning up instead of the additional costs allowance.

MPs recognise there is growing outrage about their salaries and perks, but also complain that their pay compares badly with company bosses and senior civil servants.

But on top of their salaries, MPs claimed an average of £136,000 in expenses and allowances last year. A Commons source said: “All the experts the committee consulted agreed that MPs were underpaid by between £10,000 and £15,000, so that is the amount they will submit.”

But an official close to the commission denied that any official pay claim had been made and dismissed the suggestion as speculation.

lAn estimated 18,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost by the end of the summer as a result of the economic downturn, says a report by the Confederation of British Industry.

Daily Star: GREEDY MPS WANT £15,000 PAY RISE

By Steve Hughes

GREEDY Westminster MPs have demanded a £15,000 pay rise – a whopping 25% hike on what they already earn.

News that MPs want to bump up their salaries to at least £75,000 while the country is suffering from the credit crunch has sparked outrage.

Members currently earn just over £60,000 a year, but controversially have the power to set their own wages and pensions. The proposed pay rise would be in exchange for that power and would place responsibility in the hands of an independent body.

The House of Commons Commission will suggest a rise of between £10,000 and £15,000.

A source said: “All the experts the committee consulted agreed that MPs were underpaid by between £10,000 and £15,000, so that is the amount they will submit.”

But Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: “Taxpayers are really feeling the pinch from rising food and fuel prices, higher taxes and bigger mortgages.

“So MPs should not be imposing extra burdens on the public purse by expecting higher pay.

“This pay hike is massively out of line with the pay rises the Government has imposed on teachers, nurses and police officers.”

Earlier this year PM Gordon Brown appointed Sir John Baker to review Parliamentary wages amid concerns MPs were abusing the system.

Daily Telegraph: MPs to press for pay rise of up to £15,000

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent

MPs are demanding a pay rise of up to £15,000 in return for ending their long-standing but controversial power to set their own salaries and pensions.

Earlier this year, Gordon Brown appointed the former chair of the Senior Salaries Review Board (SSRB), Sir John Baker, to review the level of Parliamentary remuneration amid growing public concern about the potential for MPs to abuse the system.

The Daily Telegraph understands that members of the House of Commons Commission, who have been considering the matter on behalf of MPs, will submit a suggested pay rise soon to Sir John of between £10,000 and £15,000.

In January, the Prime Minister and the Conservative leader David Cameron ordered rebellious MPs, who earn just over £60,000 a year, to forgo a 2.65 per cent pay rise recommended by the SSRB and accept a below-inflation 1.9 per cent increase instead.

In return, they promised to end the tradition whereby the House of Commons sets its own salaries, and turn the matter over to an independent body. A separate review will consider the issue of additional costs allowances.

MPs are aware that a year-on-year rise of nearly a third will almost certainly anger many voters, given Government calls for public sector pay restraint and below-inflation settlements offered to workers including the police.

But MPs of all parties appear determined to boost their pay levels no matter what the repercussions.

A Commons source said: "All the experts the committee consulted agreed that MPs were underpaid by between £10,000 and £15,000, so that is the amount they will submit.

"They have come to accept that the public and media will never reconcile themselves to pay rises for MPs, so they have decided that they will just have to take the hit, soak up the criticism, and move on with a more sustainable pay scale in future that better reflects the professional status of being a Member of Parliament."

Matthew Elliot, the chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, condemned the proposed rise. He said: "Tax payers are really feeling the pinch from rising food and fuel prices, higher taxes and bigger mortgages, so MPs should not be imposing extra burdens on the public purse by expecting higher pay.

"This pay hike is massively out of line with the pay rises the Government has imposed on teachers, nurses and police officers."

Daily Telegraph: Expenses of party leaders revealed

GORDON Brown will today admit that the taxpayer has paid his grocery bills in the past, and David Cameron will reveal he has claimed tens of thousands in mortgage bills for his constituency home.

The information will be disclosed by the House of Commons Speaker, who has finally agreed to release some detailed information about MPs' expenses.

Since 2003, the Prime Minister also claimed money for his utility bills and extensive renovations at his Westminster flat, including the building of a nursery. He claimed for some groceries in 2005-06 but not in the previous year. The vast bulk of Mr Cameron's expenses went on paying a mortgage for his Oxfordshire home.

There is no suggestion that either Mr Brown or Mr Cameron have done anything wrong, although the revelations will raise further questions about MPs' expenses.

Under the present system, MPs are allowed to claim up to pounds 23,000 a year towards the cost of a second home. They have also been allowed to claim thousands of pounds for furniture and other household items on the so-called "John Lewis list''.

The release of the information will prove highly embarrassing to Tony Blair and John Prescott, who both claimed tens of thousands of pounds in expenses despite having lavish grace-and-favour properties.

Michael Martin, the Speaker, will today release details of

the expenses claimed by 20 MPs, including Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and George Osborne, the shadow chancellor.

The timing of the release - on the day after MPs left for their break - has led to allegations that the Speaker is trying to bury bad news. The announcement that the information was to be released was made at 7pm last night.

The expenses will be broken down by the type of claim - such as food, utility bills, mortgage interest or home repairs. There will not be full details of all claims, as has been demanded by the Information Commissioner. The Speaker will release similar details on all MPs later in the year.

A Westminster source said: "This is very significant. None of the MPs whose details are being released today have been on the fiddle. But there are dozens of MPs who are very worried today as they have been working the system for years.''

The revelation that Mr Brown has claimed for food was seized upon last night by campaigners who are pushing for a clampdown on MPs' expenses.

The committee charged with reviewing the system conceded earlier this week that the system which allows MPs to claim up to pounds 400 a month for groceries may be unacceptable.

Last night, Mark Wallace, the campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is amazing that a man earning well over pounds 100,000 a year felt the need to make taxpayers pay his grocery bill as well.''

Aides to Mr Cameron say he has not claimed for groceries. However, a Downing Street source said: "Food is a minor part of Gordon's claim. Cameron may say he doesn't claim for food but that is because he - unlike Gordon - already claims virtually the maximum on a very expensive mortgage.''

Independent: Joan Bakewell: Why can't the Speaker's Wife use a bus pass?

The Freedom of Information Act makes nosey parkers of us all. That, plus the activities of the TaxPayers' Alliance, offers us gossip and innuendo to match anything in Heat magazine. What is more, we have a stake in the whole, gorgeous story of the Commons Speaker Michael Martin's expenses. For a start, aren't we ourselves paying for this grotesque charade? And second, don't we identify in some small way with the squirming guilt of the named parties.

For myself, I am very worried about Mrs Mary Martin's shopping. Some £4,000 in taxi fares, so the allegation is, to take her to the supermarket – perhaps many supermarkets, or certainly many visits – simply to fetch the groceries. For me, that is just not enough information. I want more, much more. Did she have a list of what she wanted so she could scoot round the shelves and not keep the taxi waiting too long? Did she go for shiny, packaged vegetables or the scruffy organic kind? Did she have vouchers or discounts from previous visits? Did she load it all into plastic bags or, with a mind to the planet, carry with her canvas substitutes? I worry that she is not getting the best from her shopping sorties.

For example, does Mary not know about Ocado, and how you simply sit at your computer and order it all online – and then a van arrives at the time of your choosing and debouches everything you ordered on to your kitchen table, plus, by way of a "thank you" a packet of something you don't want but feel grateful to receive. Is she aware how you can tweak and twitch your order until the very last moment, how they will remind you what you bought last time, and suggest things that go well with, say, balsamic vinegar, stuffed vine leaves and body gel. I'd like to know whether she hires black London cabs or prefers a fleet of mini-cabs. And, if so, have the drivers got work permits or are they illegal immigrants? Once you start asking, you never know where you will end up. Except with people feeling guilty and shifty about the simple domestic matter of giving a dinner party, albeit in an official home that has just had a £1.3m makeover.

From the other direction of social lunacy, advance one Lord Snape, who came to Mary's rescue on Channel 4 News. In her defence, he declared: "Is the Speaker's wife supposed to queue for the No 12 bus when she does her shopping?" He said this expecting the outraged answer, "Certainly not – why humiliate the wretched woman?", whereas in fact many of us thought it was a no-brainer. Does Mary not know that if she is over 60 she can get a free bus pass, and that other passengers, struggling as they often are with pushchairs and such, are a friendly crowd who will help with those plastic (canvas?) bags and see her off at the numerous bus stops around Parliament Square.

As a teenager, I once saw Clement Attlee on a London Underground train. He was wearing a heavy Homberg hat, carrying a briefcase and quietly ignoring those around him – as they did him. He was prime minister at the time. Clearly, it was not beneath his dignity to travel with those who had elected him. Cannot the Speaker's wife, an attractive woman but hardly a face you'd readily recognise, still less someone to be harassed for their celebrity, travel along with the rest of us? OK, then. Take the bus or Tube to the supermarket, and get a taxi – loaded as she will be with balsamic vinegar and stuffed vine leaves – back to her official home. But what is humiliating about using the buses!

So who is this gallant Lord Snape who rushes to defend her? I expected to discover that he was one of the left-over hereditaries, tirelessly plodding on with outdated manners and surviving privileges. Not at all. He is none other than the former Labour MP for West Bromwich East, elevated to the upper house in 2004 – and a man who owned up in the 2007 debate about the Transport Bill to having been a consultant to the National Express Group, and a former director and chairman of its main bus subsidiary, Travel West Midlands. He actually had a hand in running buses – a mode of transport he now feels is too squalid to bear Mary Martin and her groceries.

All this is a long way from serious matter of state and government. It is the trivia of parliamentary gossip, and now an inquiry by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. But it is important trivia. The increasing gap between rich and poor – between the people and the grandees – is a factor of growing political significance. On every hand, we see the rich glutted with luxury and the poor wretched and depressed. Remember, It was Marie Antoinette's frivolous games as milkmaid – trivial but condescending – that fuelled the rising hatred of the rich. Well, it happened once!

Daily Mail: ON THE HOUSE!

BY DANIEL MARTIN POLITICAL REPORTER

REVEALED: EXTRAORDINARY £22,000 SHOPPING LIST OF LUXURY GOODS EVERY MP CAN BUY AT YOUR EXPENSE

AN extraordinary portrait of how MPs are kitting out their homes with luxury goods at the taxpayer's expense was revealed last night.

They are allowed to claim a total of £22,000 for a range of items ranging from a £200 food processor and a £750 highdefinition TV to £10,000 for a new kitchen and £6,000 for a bathroom.

The secret list of 38 items MPs can claim back from the taxpayer for their second homes was revealed last night under the Freedom of Information Act after the authorities fought to keep it under wraps.

The 'John Lewis' list is so called because it is based on prices at the upmarket department store, which specialises in top-ofthe-range goods.

It will heap further pressure on MPs who are already under attack for the long list of perks they have awarded themselves, including help with mortgage costs and travel expenses.

The revelation that MPs can claim for luxury entertainment systems caused fury last night. Former anti-sleaze MP Martin Bell said the payments were 'abuses' and that public trust in politics would plunge to 'below rock bottom'.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the public were increasingly angry about the 'scandal' of MPs' expenses and things needed to change rapidly.

The revelation comes only weeks after Tory MP Derek Conway owned up to claiming salaries for his two sons and a family friend, even though they did little work.

The most recent figures show the average MP claims more than £135,000 in allowances.

On top of this, they earn more than £67,000 a year - a figure they set themselves - and have what has been described as the most generous pension scheme in the world.

Until last night, the Commons refused to divulge how much MPs may claim under the 'Additional Costs Allowance' to furnish second homes so they can have a base in London as well near their constituency.

Even MPs did not know the upper limits until officials were forced to release the list, because of fears that it would encourage MPs to buy the most expensive item they could get away with.

Andrew Walker, the Commons' director general of resources, recently told the Information Tribunal: 'My concern would be that if we say what the maximum price we will allow for such an item is, it will become the going rate.'

The document lists the prices for 38 household items which MPs can claim under the Additional Costs Allowance. They can claim up to a maximum of £22,000 - and many do.

Limits include £1,000 for a bed, £250 for a coffee table, £600 for a dining table, £500 for a dressing table and £550 for a fridge-freezer. Carpets and wood flooring can be bought at £35 per square metre.

Not all the items are essential. Comparing the list with the John Lewis website shows MPs may claim a free high-definition TV set, costing £749, a £249 home cinema system and a Kenwood classic food mixer at £199.

Rugs can be bought for £300, which could include a luxury handknotted Pakistan Bokhara rug from John Lewis, described on the website as 'soft and velvety'.

The list also reveals that dry cleaning for clothes and household items is permitted 'within reasonable limits'.

However, 'antique, luxury or premium-grade' furnishings are not allowed. Neither are 'extravagant or luxurious' items.

Martin Bell said: 'You simply couldn't make this up. It shows yet again that the reform of parliamentary expenses cannot be left to MPs themselves.

'These are abuses and if these people were employees of private companies they couldn't get away with it.

'We are in a state of crisis and people are getting really angry. If it is possible for the reputation of politicians to go below rock bottom then this is going to achieve it.

'Some of the things on this list are luxury items and the people who are getting money back on these are ripping off the public purse.'

The Additional Costs Allowance is available to MPs living outside central London - the vast majority - to cover the interest payments on their mortgages, rent or hotel accommodation.

But Mr Walker told the Information Tribunal last month that most costs associated with their second residence can be claimed back even if they are not exclusively workrelated. They can also claim up to £400 a month for shopping without receipts.

Michael Martin, the Speaker of the Commons, faced questions when it was disclosed he has claimed more than £75,000 under the Additional Costs Allowance despite not having a mortgage on his second residence.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'John Lewis is a fine store but it is hardly the cheapest place to purchase household goods.

'How many ordinary taxpayers spend £1,500 on a TV and stereo when there are cheaper deals elsewhere?

'No wonder the Government wastes so much money, if MPs don't have to stick to a tight budget themselves.'

Labour MP David Winnick urged the current review of MPs' expenses, which is being carried out by the Members' Estimate Committee chaired by Mr Martin, to look into the 'John Lewis' list.

'It does look rather expensive for a number of items and obviously the public will say "Why should John Lewis be the benchmark?",' Mr Winnick said.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: 'Clearly the recent scandals about MPs' pay and expenses have delivered a real hammer blow to public confidence in politics.'