MPs vote for ?8,000 rise in staff allowance

A cross-party coalition of MPs yesterday voted to increase their staff allowance by more than £8,000 a year in a move that will cost the taxpayer an extra £3m.

Unmoved by recent criticism of their expenses, MPs from across the chamber rejected a recommendation from the senior salaries review body (SSRB) on their staffing allowance which said it should be capped at £72,000 for all MPs outside London, rising to a maximum £80,460 for London MPs employing three full time staff in the capital.

MPs instead voted to raise the allowance to £80,460 for all 659 MPs. The increase, which was secured by 130 votes after backbench Labour MPs defied a government recommendation to accept the review body's finding, is likely to fuel criticisms of a Westminster gravy train. MPs found themselves under fire last month when it emerged that they were making full use of a range of allowances.

The row came after MPs were forced to accept a series of cuts in car mileage rates and pension contributions. MPs voted to cut their mileage rates from 57.7p a mile for the first 20,000 miles and 26.6p thereafter. This will now be 40p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter. An MP driving 20,000 miles a year on parliamentary business will lose £3,600 a year.

MPs were criticised last year when they awarded themselves a generous increase in their pensions. They will now have to contribute another £600 a year to maintain the same level after inflation.

But the vote on staffing allowances is likely to overshadow these self-imposed cuts. Peter Hain, the Commons leader, urged MPs to accept the review body's recommendations on their staffing allowances.

"Members' allowances have been the subject of some attention recently," he said as he reminded MPs that it was understandable for the public to question whether these "considerable" amounts were well spent.

But a succession of MPs protested that they should all receive the £80,460 maximum staff allowance. They objected to the recommendation that this should only be granted to London MPs.

Mike Gapes, the Labour MP for Ilford South, said: "For many of us who are outer London MPs, having both a constituency office and staff in the House of Commons and huge immigration-asylum casework, the proposals in this report will mean I will actually have to sack one of my members of staff or close down my constituency office."

David Winnick, the MP for Walsall North, said he employed only one member of staff in the Commons. "But what is rather disturbing is that we should be told how we should go about our business in serving our constituents."

Earlier MPs had expressed anger at recommendations to slash their mileage rates.

Sir Nicholas Winterton said MPs were already underpaid compared with people doing equivalent jobs outside Parliament and blasted the "grotesquely unfair" proposals to cut their benefits.

But his proposal to keep the higher rates - which had the backing of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs - was rejected by 193 votes to 118.

Mr Hain faced more questions when he introduced proposals to reduce what he called the "generous" early retirement provisions currently enjoyed by MPs.

Under the present scheme, MPs with enough service can retire early on a full or nearly full pension.

But, in line with SSRB recommendations, Mr Hain said this should stop for new MPs and be phased out following the general election after next for sitting MPs.

Andrew Miller, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said that MPs could not choose to retire at the exact age of 65 because their retirement was in the hands of the prime minister who sets the date of the general election.

Mr Gapes complained that the government had put MPs in the "invidious position of having to vote something down to defend our own position ... because it will force us to either go very early or stay until we are 67".