Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The row over MPs expenses continued today when David Cameron used Prime Ministers Questions to revisit Gordon Brown's failure to vote for reform two weeks ago.
MPs will return to the issue this evening, albeit largely symbolically, thanks to a Conservative motion and a Labour amendment which both call for the abolition of the now-infamous 'John Lewis list'.
The consensus between the two parties ends there. The Tories are saying that "Members should no longer be able to claim reimbursement for furniture and household goods." Labour's version would coninue to allow for "reimbursement of reasonable costs of a second residence." The BBC's Nick Robinson suggests there's a class divide underlying the discrepancy:
Labour MPs say to me that it's all very well for a wealthy Tory to claim over £20,000 a year in expenses in mortgage payments for a very pricey house that they had a huge deposit for. Labour MPs on the other hand often have smaller homes, pay off their mortgages because they have to, and therefore feel that they need that extra bit of money to pay for a new kettle or a fridge when it breaks down in their second home. You pays your money, and of course in the ballot box, you makes your choice.
Stonemason said:
Wed, 2008-07-16 14:35I think that MPs are probably a little aggrieved because a majority are living away from their primary residence, so need accommodation whilst in our wonderful "London Town", no MP should be penalised because of his occupation.
So lets encourage a second working home, I don't think this would be a problem for the taxpayers of the UK, let them have the expenses to rent a fully furnished flat with the outgoings. We would require the receipts, just for transparency, looking after the MPs good name, that's all.
Were the MPs to purchase a second home, this of course would be their personal choice, not an issue for the taxpayers as they would be funding the enterprise personally.
There would need to be agreement with HMRC on the principles applied, naturally the principles would apply across the board, occupation not being a criteria, good for the goose needs to be good for the gander.