The inflation busting 10% increase totalled £9 million to the bill and, at the moment represents about a third of the whole cost of operating Parliament
The commons have a gravy train that’s going full steam ahead today as Commons inspectors divulged that Members of Parliament squandered a record £98.1 million of taxpayers money on employee costs and additional overheads last year.
Statistics were made available by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which displays the huge majority of the most recent increase was down to large growth in workforce finances.
There were repeated calls for restraints on MPs putting relatives on the public payroll, at an entire cost of about £4 million.
About one in four Members of Parliament, encompassing four affluent Cabinet Ministers and fellow Tories who campaigned against the minimum wage, use constituents of their personal family at the taxpayers’ levy.
This policy was meant to have been prohibited as part of the improvements targeted at cleaning up Westminster in the wake of the expenses scandal but was retained following a backlist from politicians.
Instead it seems like they’re just trying to uplift their earnings to claim for second homes, travel, food and drink, office and alternative costs from the 650 Members of Parliament, of all the parties, added up to around £400,000 to £23.8 million.
So called payroll expenses, which cope with employees wages, taxes and pensions shot up from £8.7 million to £74.3 million. That was because staffing allowances were discreetly increased from £115,000 a year to £137,200 for MPs outside London and, from £115,000 to £144,000 for those in the city.
Members of Parliament as well dealt out £13,163 in bonuses and acknowledgement payments to 49 employees last year. That was up from the £8,104 paid out to 57 workers in the foregoing 12 months.
The MP who lay claim the most was Ian Paisley Junior, the Democratic Unionist who stands for North Antrim. His personal and office claims added up to £232,042.33, including £45,039.08 on travel and food.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin both use their lady wives and, they’re rewarded between £35,000 and £39,999 and, the inventory goes on.
A further Cabinet minister, Lib Dem Scotland Secretary Michael Moore, also employs his spouse and, he paid her £15,000 to £19,999 the previous year.
Jennie Bone, famed by frequent statements in her husband Peter’s Commons talks, makes a stealing of between £45,000 and £49,999 following a pay increase as his office manager.
The Mirror disclosed earlier this year that I’m A Celeb star Nadine Dorries had flipped her employee allowance between daughters.
A sum of 10 MPs’ family members get more than £40,000 a year, well over the UKs national mediocre wages of £26,500.
Sir Alistair Graham, ex chairman of the Committee on Standards, said Members of Parliament should have said ‘yes’ to restrictions on employing family when the watchdog called for an embargo and, if they still wanted to keep it in the family then IPSA should take over the hiring and firing.
Lib Dem Deputy PM Nick Clegg was the most costly at £152,553.82 with £12,688.01 in personal overheads, incorporating £9,767.41 for accommodation and bills and £2,920.60 for travel and subsistence. His claims also comprised £145.50 for a TV licence and 5 first class train journeys.
The statistics were made available as Parliament broke up for the party conference season, precisely two weeks following that MPs came back from their lengthy summer break and, of course Members of Parliament have a significant job to do, representing their voters in Parliament, but like any operational place of work, they are required to keep these costs under control.
Furthermore, at a time when everybody is feeling such a financial squeeze, it’s inappropriate that MPs have given themselves a pay increase. If their voters haven’t been given a green light to do it, then how come the people that represent them are allowed to?
In the understanding of the former misuses of public sector funds, it’s crucial that these sorts of details are made known; so that the taxpayer can adjudicate for themselves whether their representatives are delivering value for money.