Why should our MPs profit from a second home?

By Steve Bax on May 28, 09 09:39 AM in Out and about

The last three weeks in Westminster have been like watching a train wreck in slow motion, according to local MP Philip Hammond.

Writing in this week's Surrey Herald, the Runnymede & Weybridge MP reveals the Commons are in a state of paralysis, with politicians of all creeds obsessing about the next Daily Telegraph revelations about their expenses, and the realisation has dawned that all MPs - innocent, guilty or guiltier - are tarred.

Until recently if you'd asked me what the chances are of Mr Hammond, or neighbouring Tory MPs David Wilshire and Ian Taylor, losing their seats at the next election, I would have answered "zero". But in light of the current mood sweeping the nation it looks like all bets are off.

The thorny issue for all three of our MPs is, it seems to me, this issue of second homes (or third in Mr Wilshire's case), funded to the tune of around £23,000 a year by the taxpayer.

I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that if you work in London and are required to work late at night, followed by an early start the next morning, it makes sense to stay overnight in the Capital, preferably as close to Westminster as possible.

But that should not mean that MPs are in some way entitled to a free home on the state. Because surely if your monthly mortgage payments are paid for by the taxpayer, meaning you never have to dip your hand in your pocket, other than perhaps for furnishings (and much of these - as we've seen - are claimable), and in time that mortgage is paid off, you've effectively received a free home. Under the current system MPs own that home and are free to sell it and bank the profits... regardless of whether they've paid for it or not.

I don't know about you but that doesn't sound right to me. Where is the difference between this 'legal' freeloading and the benefit cheats who are exposed with semi-regularity in the pages of our newspaper?

If a politician is elected to Parliament they know they are going to be there for four to five years (or more if re-elected) and if they want to buy a second home they should get a mortgage like anyone else. And they should pay for that mortgage out of their own pocket like anybody else. If they do that and they make a profit when they sell the second home I don't think most people would begrudge that. But MPs are - for the moment at least - in the enviable position of being able to sell a home, that you and I paid for, and keeping the profit. That surely is not right.

Which is why I'm pleased to see Philip Hammond acknowledging that very point in his column and declaring that he will repay any profits from the sale of his London home, which arise out of the part of his mortgage paid by the taxpayer.

That is a good start, although whether it's enough to quell local anger I don't know. Many may wonder why he felt it necessary to claim any taxpayer money for his London home in the first place, especially given that he is a wealthy man.

His argument is that it is about equity - why should another MP claim if he can't? - has a certain logic, but this is about raw angry emotion on the part of voters and a smart argument or blaming it on the system won't wash anymore.

I believe Philip Hammond to be a savvy chap and a good judge of the public mood. His guesture to pay back money for his second home (when he sells) may be enough to diffuse a lot of the anger locally, and his 12,349 majority would take a lot to overturn. So unless the are other skeletons in the expenses cupboard that we've yet to hear about, I suspect he'll survive.

As for Esher & Walton MP Ian Taylor, who is losing support among his own party faithful, and David Wilshire whose homes and travel expenses have angered his electorate, I'm not so sure.

It may be that - despite Conservatives calling for an immediate General Election - the best hopes of individual politicians lies with Gordon Brown delaying the poll until summer next year, by which time the political storm may have abated and Daily Telegraph might possibly have run out of front page revelations.