| Expenses |
| The issue: |
Dear Sir George,
I, like many others, am very worried about all the reports about expenses being claimed by MP's. I have looked at your list that you have published and read some replies on your FAQ's.
We are all hearing the same statements that nobody has broken any rules and I am not sugesting that you have in any way.
I would like your view on the fact that MP's can claim mortgage payments on a house for as long as they are in office but when the house is then sold the tax payers that have paid for the house and all the repairs/refurbishment to be done is not going to get anything back into the public purse for the next MP who requires a second home.
A quote from your views
"15. Members' expenses are always likely to prove controversial in some quarters, and the level of allowances, like Members' salaries, will inevitably remain a matter of public debate. Independent involvement in determining fair levels for these, which balance Members' rights to reasonable levels of reimbursement of the costs of their office with taxpayers' expectations that public funds should not be used to facilitate private benefit, is a key element in maximising public confidence in this area where the natural sensitivity is compounded by Members ultimately being judge and jury in a matter in which they have a direct personal interest. "
Every MP who claims a second home allowance is making personal gain because of the property value going up and then keeping the profits when the house is sold.
How would you suggest this be resolved in a fair manor that would begin to rebuild trust in our MP's?
Best regards
|
| Date Issue Raised: |
16 May 2009 |
| My response: |
Many thanks for the email, suggesting that if MP’s make a profit on their second homes, any profit should be returned to the taxpayer. It is a reasonable proposition, that I am sure Sir Christopher Kelly will examine.
It would follow (though I suppose it is not inevitable) that if MP’s are to go forego any profit, the taxpayer should make good any loss. Given the current state of the property market in London, this could be expensive. I make no complaint about this, but when my constituency in Ealing was abolished and I sold my home there, I made a considerable loss. I did not expect the taxpayer to make this up.
If MP’s stood the loss, and had to give up any profit, they would probably rent. This might end up costing the taxpayer more. If they do sell at a profit, the recent rule changes would ensure that they would pay Capital gains Tax.
Best wishes, George Young.
|
|
Sir George Young Bt MP: Constituency and Parliamentary Website 