Opinion of the Committee
153. Members of Parliament currently claim reimbursement
of the costs they incur in travelling on parliamentary business
between their constituency and Westminster, and within their constituency,
whether by car or public transport. Clearly constituents expect
their MP to go to Westminster and represent their interests in
Parliament, and also to be available in the constituency and to
get around visiting groups and people in the locality. The case
for these travel costs being met from the public purse appears
overwhelming and no one has seriously questioned it.
154. Staff travel between the constituency and
Westminster is also covered, enabling members of an MP's staff
team to liaise, to attend training courses, and to support the
MP's work in both locations as may be needed from time to time.
Each MP's office is entitled to 12 such return journeys each year,
divided between the staff team, and again the case for such costs
being met seems compelling. No one has argued, and we see no case,
for change.
155. Members can also visit other venues relevant
to their parliamentary work where this has been specifically permitted
by the House authorities under the "extended travel"
system, and may make three journeys each year to visit political
institutions in Brussels or other European capitals, on parliamentary
business. We have not received any representation suggesting that
these arrangements should be altered. Further costs may be incurred
when MPs travel as part of a parliamentary committee or delegation,
but these are borne by the House administration and are not accounted
to the travel spending of the individual, so lie beyond the scope
of this review.
156. Most parliamentary travel by public transport
is now largely arranged through a corporate credit card, with
the Member having to account for individual journeys but not being
directly reimbursed. The Commons travel office can book journeys
for Members and negotiates special rates particularly on air tickets.
157. Since the Freedom of Information Act came
into effect the House's publication scheme for MPs' expenses has
offered greater transparency by listing each MP's annual travel
spending, thus providing an incentive to secure value for the
public's money. For the last two years this publication has extended
to stating the sums claimed by "mode of travel" categories,
so providing an incentive for Members to travel in as environmentally
friendly a way as practical.
158. The SSRB, reporting in July 2007, recommended
no change in the current HMRC rates.
159. All independent evidence suggests that at
the present time the mileage rate of 40p per mile does not compensate
colleagues who have to use a motor vehicle in the performance
of their duties. If they have a large rural constituency many
MPs will be making substantial losses on performing their parliamentary
duties. However, MPs are not the only people in this situation.
The rise in fuel prices affects millions of other workers. Throughout
this report we have taken the view that Members of Parliament
should not be worse off for performing public duties but they
should not be better off than other members of the public either.
Accordingly, we will make no case for increasing the 40p per mile
paid to Members of Parliament until such time as the Treasury
reviews this rate for everyone else in the country.
160. We recommend that the House should continue
to apply the same car mileage rate as specified by HM Revenue
& Customs.
161. The SSRB in its 2007 report suggested, as
one way of helping reduce MPs' motoring costs, investigating the
feasibility of the House acting as a corporate body for the purposes
of leasing cars for Members. This arrangement is not uncommon
among employers in the private and public sectors. The aim would
be to enable MPs to lease cars as business rather than private
customers. There is no suggestion of subsidising such leases with
public money, but simply to use collective purchasing power to
secure more cost effective arrangements for Members. We are considering
with care the details of such a scheme and if it proves practical
we would hope to offer such a facility by the time the revised
systems come into effect in 2009.
162. Travel is a matter on which the needs of
Members vary considerably, not only on the basis of distance from
London, but also the size and geography of constituencies and
the ready availability of public transport to London. As described
in our earlier "issues" paper and in paragraph 151 above,
we have explored the possibility of a genuine travel "allowance"—an
annual grant based on a formula reflecting the size of constituency
and its distance from London. Having looked at financial modelling
for such a formula we have concluded that it would not form a
practical basis for creating such an allowance. However, the present
administrative threshold below which un-itemised monthly motoring
claims within a constituency can be made—the standard figure
of 350 miles—fails entirely to reflect the differences between
compact urban and larger rural seats. We believe this could usefully
be modified as follows:
