MP Liam Fox claims rules on renting out are 'absurd'
LIAM Fox has attacked Parliament's "absurd" expenses rules in the row over MPs renting out their London homes.
Dr Fox is one of the MPs revealed to be claiming expenses to rent a London home while simultaneously letting out another one that they own. However, he is not one of eight who are reported to be in a rental arrangement with another MP.
-
The North Somerset MP defended his actions, saying he had been unable to live in the flat he owns in the capital while he was Defence Secretary, as the position comes with a secure grace- and-favour apartment.
He said: "When I was Secretary of State I was not allowed to live in a flat for security reasons. I was moved out of it.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
"The options were either to sell it or keep it rented until I was able to move back at a future date."
Dr Fox said he would sell the flat "at some point".
Under tough new rules drawn up following the expenses scandal of 2009, MPs are no longer entitled to charge taxpayers for mortgage interest on their second homes. Only rental or hotel costs are allowed.
This has meant MPs who purchased flats in London were unable to claim support for living there. Some sold the properties, while it has been revealed that 27 chose to rent out the properties – while claiming rent to live somewhere else. This is within the rules set out by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which monitors MPs' allowances. But critics have said it is "against the spirit of those rules".
Dr Fox added: "People tried to adapt to the new rules, and did what Ipsa told them.
"It's absurd that MPs end up paying their landlords' mortgage, but are not allowed to sustain their own properties."
He added: "The simple answer would be to allow MPs to claim the same amount of money for the property they were paying mortgages on.
"A lot of us said at the time it was absurd."
A row blew up after the Commons speaker, John Bercow, intervened to attempt to block the publication under the Freedom of Information Act of MPs' rental arrangements. Mr Bercow said this was because of security fears if MPs' addresses were made public, after members from all parties raised concerns. However, Dr Fox said he was on the electoral roll, and was "absolutely relaxed" about his address being known.
In a letter to Ipsa, Mr Bercow insisted there was a "very real danger" that MPs' residential addresses could be discovered as a result of the planned publication.
Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of Ipsa, insisted the authority "would not, under any circumstances, release the full address" of an MP.
He said all affected MPs had been contacted, asking if they had concerns about the release of their landlord's details.
Comments
by smoosername
Monday, October 22 2012, 11:11AM
“Let me put it like this Liam.....
You are the owner of a company. You find that the employees of your company have been claiming expenses not to compensate out of pocket costs, but to increase their wage. The employees refused to publish their expense claims to you, however after a long battle the details were released. One very naughty employee had claimed £22,476 for a mortgage that didn't exist. Naughty man. This employee then repaid the full amount but later went to court to try and block this and only when told by a judge did he drop the claim, after great expense for you company. This naughty employee also ran up a huge phone bill of £19,000 over 4 years that you as the owner of the company had to pay.
It then appeared that some employees had been taking their boyfriend/girlfriend/partner on the overseas trips they made. You as the owner of the company had been paying for the privilege. Unfortunately the boyfriend/girlfriend/partner was not there to help your company but more to further their own personal wealth. How annoying. It then appeared that this employee had actually employed their boyfriend/girlfriend/partner and was paying them with expenses from your company. Again, very annoying.
Some employees were also travelling to the capital where they already had properties. But instead of staying at them, they were renting them out. They would then rent another property that you are the owner would have to pay for. Not breaking any rules, but you can see it's not exactly right. The employee however, says as no rules have been broken, he will continue to do so.
So as you can see, the employees of your company aren't exactly trust worthy, don't seem to know the difference between right and wrong and need more rules to keep them on the straight and narrow, not less.”