Cameron's Addiction

Human beings tend to remember first impressions.

In conducting their story on expenses the Telegraph focussed almost exclusively on Labour MPs and Ministers during the first three days of coverage. This was justified in quite moral terms; as the present Government of the day they should be the first under the spotlight of scrutiny. However, even for someone like me, on the right hand side of the political divide, it is clear that the commentary has not been even-handed. This has resulted in a quite spectacular collapse of support for the Labour Party, whereas the Tory lead has remained - partly because of this biased commentary. Not all of this has been down to press bias – it has been helped along by the fact that two Labour MPs have now claimed on non-existent mortgages or loans and the woeful lack of action by Gordon Brown.

In contradistinction, David Cameron has been presented as quite frugal in his claims for expenses and showing ‘leadership’ in making people pay back their quite unethical claims. His plaintive cry at his recent press conference was that he was paying back the £680 claim for Wisteria removal (his one and only claim for gardening maintenance ever - please note that kind members of the press!).

What he did not say was that he was going to pay back the £19,626 claim for Additional Costs Allowance for 2007/08.

The ACA is there to support an MP in conducting his duties away from his main home. The ACA Maximum for 2007/08 was £23,083; that is, Cameron was pushing the limit in what he could claim for mortgage interest.

It has become established wisdom that MPs have to have a second home as they are required to attend Parliament, which might be hundreds of miles away from their constituency. Indeed, much to the ire of his colleagues, who have had to pay back thousands, Cameron seems quite happy to keep his ACA. One might say it was an Addictional Claims Allowance; when Brown recently tried to reach a consensus with other party leaders on a new set of rules it was the ACA which proved to be the stumbling block for the Tory leader.

We really need to start questioning this wisdom. Does it stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Is the ACA a habit which needs to be broken?

As Kate Hoey said on today’s “Andrew Marr show”, MPs could claim a subsistence allowance for staying overnight in a Hotel – ‘just like other businessmen’ – well quite!

Harry recommends the Premier Inn, Euston (do I get any commission for advertising?). At current rates a Sunday to Thursday night stay would be £546. Cameron’s ACA would allow for 35 weeks stay – more than enough for the 33 weeks that Parliament actually sits. Naturally, MPs do not attend Parliament every day in every week - so the actual amount spent on such a Hotel will be a lot less than claimed via the ACA.

In addition, and I think I am right in saying this, the telegenic MP for Shrewbury, Daniel Kawczynski, has mooted the idea of getting group rates for stays in Hotel – further reducing the burden on the public purse. A lot of buying power could be afforded by 500 MPs could it not?

In the future we also need to consider whether actual physical presence is required. Business meetings can, nowadays be conducted over the internet. If an MP is not speaking, and is merely attending a vote, would there be scope to introduce text voting? Are we making the most of current technologies to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer?

If tradition is standing in our way, we need to strike it down; we are no longer in an era of extravagance.