Mark Pritchard MP
Wrekin MP Mark Pritchard said this afternoon there needed to be “root and branch reform” to the expenses system, but warned against a return to a Commons “full of the landed gentry”.
The Tory MP spoke out after Gordon Brown called for the system to be sorted out once and for all and it was revealed that a fresh inquiry into MPs’ expenses would start within weeks.
- See also: Region’s MPs claim £900,000
Mr Pritchard said: “The majority of MPs enter public service for the right reasons and certainly not to make money, given that many take substantial pay cuts to become MPs.
But that does not detract from the fact that the system needs to ensure increased transparency and accountability.”
He added: “It is interesting to note that MPs who claim the lowest amount of allowances are often multi-millionaires.
“Do we want to return to a Parliament of the landed gentry and millionaires, or should we have a Parliament which is representative of all socio-economic groups?”
The announcement that a probe by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is to be brought forward and that it will report before the end of the year follows an outcry over senior figures bending the rules.
It also came in the wake of claims by Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell that details of MPs’ expenses were being hiked around the media with a £300,000 price tag.
Sir Stuart, a member of the House of Commons Commission, said a hunt was on for the source of the leak of allowance claims following the weekend revelation that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had claimed for two blue films watched on cable TV by her husband.
See Also:
7 Comments
Personally I’d like to see the following…
An increase in MPs’ salaries, but on the following basis:
Firstly, no other jobs allowed – if you’re an MP you’re a full-time MP, not a director, not a TV presenter, but a representative of the people, doing that job full time.
Secondly, if you need a second address in London, and I accept that many MPs do, then it should either be rented and expensed, or if purchased, it should be purchased by the taxpayer, and any equity gained should be returned to the public purse.
Thirdly, scretarial and other support jobs should be Civil Service jobs, properly paid and formally advertised to the general public – not done by some cosy little arrangement within the family. If an MP’s spouse wants to be the MP’s secretary they should apply for the post as part of the standard application to the Civil Service.
MPs, for all their faults, generally do a valuable job. We pay our MPs less than many other countries do, and that’s partly why all of these rather seedy methods of boosting their income have become such an issue.
The current annual salary for an MP is approx £63,000. A pretty good salary, but not up there with say, GPs, who are on £100,000 these days, and far less than many company CEOs, lawyers etc.
Subject to the restrictions detailed above, I’d be happy for our MPs to be paid £100,000 per annum. Some would undoubtedly pack in the job if they couldn’t keep their highly paid second careers. Good riddance to them – I for one don’t want an MP who seeks to serve more than one master.
Report abuse
What qualifications do MP’s, MEP’s, AM’s, councellors, parasitic Spin Liars, Non-jobs, Quango’s have.
There are so many on the pay roll and with about 3,000,000+ on benefits and rising, we’ll never get this bunch of thieves, Liars, and spivs out of office.
We are being run by an unelected, megalamanic, who just not get it!!
Report abuse
A number of interesting matters crop up here,
(a)suddenly a large number of MPs call for root and branch revision of the outrageous “expences and allowances system”. Why now, could it be because they have all suddenly been found out, the system has been running for years – no complaints from them before.
(b)this MP say’s that those MPs who claim the lowest amounts are often multi millionaires. Could it be, this gives the lie to the claim that the millionaires in the house are the only ones that are “bent” and the worker class, sons of the soil and factory are the only ones with honest high principles when it has been the latter that have recently been “found out”.
(c) are we to believe that because the “multi millionaire” MPs ostensibly don’t need to fiddle the expences claims, the ones that do fiddle are “hard up” for the cost of a bathroom plug, a blue movie, a £1,000 antique fireplace or a £500 granite kitchen sink.
(d) we have heard it all before, MPs taking a cut in salary in order to help the country, the downtrodden and the oppressed. I would be really interested in knowing who the MPs are who have taken a cut in their salaries before becoming an MP. I know some who were running around like waifs and strays with hardly a “tee shirt” to their backs before they became MPs and they are now living it up in the lap of luxury with directorships and god knows what else.
Complete and utter rubbish and as for the Stuart Bell nonsence, Sky midday news today. Many MPs said that they had never heard of this enquiry to trace a “mole” and one MP went so far as to say it was a fantasy. One newspaper Editor pooh-pooed the claim of £300,000, saying that a figure for these accounts was more in the order of £3,000. Methinks Stuart Bell is trying to throw in a distraction away from Jaqui Smith.
Report abuse
The quotes here are EXACTLY the same words used by Mark on the Jim Hawkins show on Radio Shropshire leading me to two possible scenarios;
1) Mark pre rehearsed the lines, and sent a written copy to the Star upon request.
2) Some lazy hack in Ketley was listening to the radio this morning and wrote his piece based upon it.
If number two is the correct answer then why not cite the source of your quotes here and give Jim and his team the respect they are due.
Given the recent ‘borrowing’ of the Wrekin/Gem stone story from the Birmingham Post I’m starting to think the SS is being run by 6th form media students.
I don’t really expect you to publish this comment because I’ve had already been given the silent treatment of my question about website comments but if someone would do me the honour of replying to my question then you can find my email address above.
Regards
Merk
Report abuse
Drewp,
We don’t elect prime ministers in this country. There are many prime ministers in our history who were not put in that position following a general election – including Winston Churchill on one occasion. John Major was another, as was Jim Callaghan.
That’s why we call it a parliamentary democracy – we elect members of parliament.
As for their qualifications, whilst many MPs are qualified lawyers, doctors and from many other professions, some have worked their way up to the positions from very humble beginnings. Isn’t that the way it should be in a democracy?
Report abuse
Do you know what Peter, I have read through your comment with a fine toothcomb and there is not one word with which I would disagree.
The basic salary of an MP at present is not much in comparison with other forms of employment. £100,000 would be more like it with the complete and total removal of other forms of expence and allowance, travel to/from London being the exception. They must obviously have this paid for but NOT for their families which is the case at present.
It is arguable but I would also like to see some sort of remuneration for an MPs spouse, Not by being directly employed (absolutely taboo in my view) but having a fixed relatively small amount for all the support, time and effort that they give to MPs which many would say is absolutely essential if they are to function properly. What say a fixed flat rate of £10,000 pa.
Report abuse
So Mark Pritchard does not want to go back to the days of MP’s being only from the “landed gentry”. Well today the equivalent of the 18th century landed gentry is the professional politician, it is not wealth and family ties to an area that gets you elected but to be politically connected through years of being employed in the public sector or other non wealth creating positions.
Report abuse