There is an unwritten rule that forbids MPs from complaining about their pay and conditions. Public mockery, condemnation and shame await any hapless Member of Parliament who is caught lamenting any aspect of their remuneration. Angela Smith, my predecessor as MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, was publicly lambasted when it came to light that she had written to the parliamentary authorities to complain that her circumstances meant she would not be entitled to the usual redundancy package should she fail to be re-elected.

But since I am no longer an MP, this unwritten rule no longer applies to me. And I wish to lodge a complaint.

My beef is not with MPs’ wages, which I think are broadly fair. £91,000 per annum is by any reckoning a large salary, though broadly in-line with other senior public servants such as headteachers and doctors. Many civil servants, NHS managers and council chiefs out-earn MPs by some margin. MPs are paid well enough to compensate for the long hours, serious responsibility and considerable personal and reputational risk inherent to the job, but not well enough to tempt individuals to stand for election purely for financial gain.

Instead my concerns lie with the expenses scheme and the way it is used by the media to attack MPs and demean them in the eyes of the public.

This week we witnessed another “expenses” scandal, when some commentators sought to manufacture outrage by juxtaposing Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claims for heating costs with her decision to means-test the old-age winter fuel payment. Of course, this is comparing apples with pears; but those responsible for the “story” knew exactly what buttons to press to trigger an outpouring of anger about MPs who are apparently “on the take” and using their “second homes” to profit from the misery of poor pensioners.  

The root cause of the outrage is a lack of understanding about the job of a Member of Parliament and what the expenses system is for. MPs must live in two places, normally spending Mondays to Thursdays in Parliament and Fridays and weekends in their constituencies. Since sitting times in Parliament are unpredictable, and voting can take place late into the night, it is clearly not feasible for MPs to commute from their constituencies (except if those constituencies are in London and indeed, London MPs are not entitled to any accommodation allowances). It is therefore essential that MPs rent either a flat or a hotel room close to Westminster to enable them to do their job.

But this doesn’t come cheap. Central London has eye watering property costs — a tiny flat near Westminster will set you back upwards of £2000 a month, not including bills, council tax, insurance, broadband etc. MPs certainly earn enough to fund one home, but not two, especially when that second home by necessity is in one of the world’s most expensive locations. MPs therefore have access to a strictly capped “accommodation budget” that allows them to rent, heat and service a property or use hotel rooms. The accommodation budget can’t be used to pay a mortgage — so it can’t be used to accumulate capital — and any unspent budget just remains with the parliamentary authorities. There are no “leftovers” that can be pocketed by MPs.

This should hardly be controversial. In any other profession, those who are expected to travel for work have their costs covered by their employer. If the MPs accommodation allowance were to be scrapped, it would mean that only those with serious private wealth, or who already own a second property, could afford to stand for election. I hardly think that would be progress.

Some have suggested that it would be more cost-effective for Parliament to build or purchase a block of flats or hotel near Westminster for all MPs. But this would represent a serious security risk and is unlikely to be cost-effective given the price of real estate in SW1 and the 24-hour armed police protection that would be required.

The problem with the perception of MPs’ expenses is three-fold. Firstly, the expenses scandal of 2010 understandably did enormous damage to public trust in politicians, damage that has not been repaired by the introduction of a new stringent and transparent system that all but prevents fraudulent claims. Just like in other sectors, MPs must reconcile their transactions on a monthly basis, providing receipts and justification for purchases. There is a strict and publicly available list of what can and cannot be claimed. If an MP tried to use their corporate credit card to purchase anything outside of that list — food or drink for example — then that claim would simply be rejected. The system is assiduously monitored by parliamentary account managers who regularly query claims and ask for further proofs. It would be enormously helpful to public confidence if we could educate voters about the current scheme and its almost water-tight robustness.

Secondly, the language used to describe MPs’ allowances is misleading and unhelpful. A tiny flat or hotel room that is used only for sleeping and working alone is not a “second home”. Money spent on staffing, stationery and travel are necessary business costs, not benefits. Commentators regularly claim that other public servants don’t get to ‘expense’ their costs. But that is complete baloney. What headteacher pays for a personal assistant out of her own pocket? What civil servant is forced to purchase a laptop and printer out of his own wage?

And lastly, the media seems to delight in misrepresenting the system, deliberately undermining public trust in politicians. A prime example was during the pandemic, when parliamentary authorities decided to increase MPs’ office budgets by £10,000 to allow the purchase of laptops and other equipment for staff suddenly forced to work from home. This was an essential decision, without which many MPs could not have responded to the hundreds of emails we were receiving from constituents each day, desperate for help and advice about the rapidly changing situation. Of course, any money that wasn’t spent on equipment went unclaimed; no cash changed hands. Yet the Sunday Times chose to report the budget uplift as a “pay rise” for MPs, implying that Parliamentarians were getting a cash bonus at the very time millions of people were facing real hardship. This irresponsible reporting resulted in days of work for MPs’ staff, responding to angry emails from disgruntled constituents, and permanent reputational damage. 

Local media outlets are no less culpable, regularly printing critical stories about MPs who apparently claim for trivial items, knowing full well that stationery and stamps are purchased by staff, not MPs themselves. Why should an MP’s assistant cover these costs from his own (often low) wages?

Like in any walk of life, there are good, bad and indifferent MPs. There are MPs who are scrupulously honest and those who would game the system if they could. But the general assumption that all MPs are lazy, greedy and on the take is false and damaging to our democracy.

When we consider how MPs should be treated and remunerated, it is helpful to think about the kind of people we want to stand for election in ten years time, rather than making an emotional judgement as to whether the current crop of MPs deserve their pay. It is in our country’s best interests to attract the brightest and the best to public life. If we take a penny pinching attitude to MPs’ pay and conditions, then those who have been successful in business and the professions – and have large mortgages and monthly outgoings to match – simply won’t consider standing for Parliament. I know several people in that category who would make excellent MPs.

Similarly, if we are not willing to properly fund the tools required to the job well – accommodation close to Parliament, sufficient staffing to serve constituents – then only the privately wealthy will apply. 

Being an MP will always be an insecure occupation, as I and so many of my former colleagues have recently discovered. The public exposure and reputational risk can often damage – rather than enhance – future job prospects. During my time as an MP I was outspoken on issues around safeguarding and transparency in schools and consequently I’m unlikely ever again to be employed as a teacher. That’s not a complaint – I have no regrets – but it is a reminder of why being an MP is a uniquely precarious occupation.

MPs are well paid but poorly treated by the public and the media. Yes, there are enormous privileges to the role but also huge personal costs, and many people I know wouldn’t do it for any money in the world. On the day in December last year when my name was headline news across all national media outlets as I was accused of bringing Parliament into “disrepute”; when my husband, children, parents, friends and elderly grandfather had to endure such a bitter public attack on my reputation; when I faced months of speculation about what horrific act I might have committed since I was forbidden from discussing my “crime” (I attended a small gathering in 2020 that was reported to break lockdown rules – it didn’t and I was cleared); then I can tell you that my after-tax monthly paypacket seemed very paltry compensation indeed.

Yet on balance I believe MPs’ salary and business allowances are broadly fair. The problem is not the system itself, but how it is (mis)understood. A simple but effective reform would be to change how MPs’ expense claims are published. Transparency is of course a good thing, but the current practice of publishing every single transaction opens the door to vexatious reporting and does not reflect the fact that different MPs in different constituencies will have genuinely different costs. Instead of reporting every individual item purchased, no matter how small, the authorities should simply publish the total amount each MP has spent within their allowed staffing, accommodation, and office budgets, and whether or not all expenses have been properly evidenced and accounted for. This would maintain transparency and accountability but end the opportunity for damaging and misleading headlines such as “greedy MP claims 85p for second class stamp”.

MPs need to focus on serving country and constituency to the best of their ability without worrying about how their legitimate expenses will be reported. Decent, respectable people care about how they are perceived and will be discouraged from standing for election if we continue to misrepresent and demonise politicians. A parliament full of people who don’t give a damn about their reputations is not an appealing prospect. For the sake of democracy, please let’s give MPs a break.