Houses of ParliamentFriso Gentsch/DPA/Press Association Images

The MPs expenses scandal brought in sweeping changes. After the horrifying costs and exploitation of hard-pressed taxpayers, never again would MPs be allowed to take us for a ride...until last year, when the bill for MPs expenses went up 25% - almost at the same level as at the height of the scandal.

So what's going on?

Broken Britain

Expenses

According to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the bill for MPs expenses went up 25% in the last tax year to an astonishing £89.4 million. It's only just shy of the bill at the peak of the crisis of £95.6 million in 2009.

And while it says it has different standards and a rigid approach to the rules, it only actually rejected seven claims last year. Six of them were tiny travel bills from Chris Huhne, which came to a total of less than £5, and one was an electricity bill from former Education Minister Tim Loughton - which was rejected as a 'duplicate'.

Broken Britain


Pleased

The IPSA is quite happy with this bill - arguing that the reason it was lower last year was only because of the general election, and this was a sustainably lower figure.

Chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said: "There will be some who might say 'this is too much 'or 'I could do it for less'. But we should look at the issue in more depth. MPs are there to represent us. If we want to be able to see our MP, contact their staff – and it is in on MPs' staff where most of this expense goes, visit MPs' offices, have them write to us, represent us in Parliament, and help us with problems in the constituency, we have to face the fact that there is a cost to doing so. If we want a good service from our MPs, we have to fund them. And if you don't think you get a good service from your MP, the answer is not to withhold funding– it is to use your vote."

He claimed a great leap forward in that the figures are being published - including details of whether any family member is being employed - saying: "What we now have are clear, fair rules setting out what MPs can claim, with an independent regulator to govern the system, and transparency so we can all see where our money goes. The fact that you can go onto our website and browse the figures at your leisure is testament to how much has changed in just a couple of years."

Where the money goes

In one respect he is right: we can see the extent of the claims now. However, you'd have to be quite myopic to consider £5 million to be a reasonable saving once you have eliminated the moats and the duck houses from the sums.

The huge expenses figure comes from the fact that most MPs still have to run two houses (one in London and one in their constituency) and commute between them, so they charge a small fortune in rent and travel.

Many also have staff to pay for. The top claimants received over £150,000 each - one because he has a remote Scottish constituency and one because of staffing health problems.

Over-the-top

One big spender was Gordon Brown, who claimed £127,197, including £13,458 in travel - despite the fact he has only spoken three times in the House of Commons chamber since he was ousted as Prime Minister.

Part of the problem comes from the fact that MPs are happy to help themselves to things they consider essential that the rest of us consider to be luxuries beyond our grasp. This includes a shocking 50 Apple iPads claimed on expenses during the year.

Then, of course, is the multitude of things hiding in the detail. It's hard to know what a bill labelled 'other' was for, just as it can be difficult to understand why so many MPs are spending well over £2,000 a year on stationery. They must have quite a Christmas card list.

And don't let us forget that this is all in addition to large salaries and gold plated pensions.

So what do you think? Is this a step forward? Are we getting value for money? Or is this a lot of fuss and bother with very little result in the end? Let us know in the comments.

Five biggest taxpayer stings

  • 1. HMRC vs Vodafone
    <p> Most recently HM Revenue &amp; Customs let Vodafone off the hook - for quite a sum. Vodafone paid out just &pound;1.25 billion despite an original tax bill being closer to &pound;8 billion (HMRC has always refused to reveal how much it thought the Vodafone final bill was). The episode was made even more shaming and painful because Vodafone was given several years to come good with the cash owed - even though it was sitting on a substantial cash pile at the time.</p>
    1. HMRC vs Vodafone
  • 2. HMRC vs Goldman Sachs
    <p> The Exchequer is estimated to have lost around &pound;10 million to Goldman Sachs recently through an 'error' made by HMRC. The episode relates to an employee benefit trust run by Goldman allowing employees to take non-repayable loans that had no National Insurance contributions tied to them. HMRC <em>did</em> claw back the full amount from more than 20 businesses - but not Goldman. HMRC remains cagey about the details of the deal. Little HMRC accountability or transparency.</p>
    2. HMRC vs Goldman Sachs
  • 3. Taxpayer vs Carlyle Group - QinetiQ
    <p> Huge problems with QinetiQ, the former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, or DERA. A lack of clarity on contractual arrangements at the outset didn't help, allowing private equity company Carlyle to hammer the price down (why would you start negotiations when you didn't know the company's true value?). The Ministry of Defence behaved, it was said, like &quot;an innocent at a table of card-sharps&quot;. Estimated cost to the taxpayer - &pound;90 million. Huge sums were later made by QinetiQ management when the company listed.</p>
    3. Taxpayer vs Carlyle Group - QinetiQ
  • 4. Taxpayer vs NHS Management
    <p> The TaxPayers' Alliances estimates &pound;2.7bn worth of taxpayer cash was wasted with a super-expensive 'National Programme for IT in the NHS'. The Department of Health, in the end, had very little to show for it as a consequence. Another example of poor management and a seemingly ingrained inability to provide taxpayers' with value for money.</p> <p> <br /> &quot;BT is paid &pound;9 million to implement systems at each NHS site, even though the same systems have been purchased for under &pound;2 million by NHS organisations outside the Programme&quot;, the Commons Public Accounts Committee noted.</p>
    4. Taxpayer vs NHS Management
  • 5. Taxpayer vs public sector productivity
    <p> Contentious. The Office for National Statistics estimated this has declined 3.4% since 1997, &quot;with inputs increasing by 38%.&quot; The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimate that this inefficiency costs the taxpayer &pound;58.4 billion a year.</p> <p> Given the above record, are there any deals that the taxpayer has actually won out on? Not many, but the one successful project was the roll out of new Jobcentre Plus offices. It came in &pound;314 million under budget, claims the Taxpayers' Alliance. A small cheer.</p>
    5. Taxpayer vs public sector productivity


More stories