MPs' Christmas Benefits: Should They Still Exist in The Cost of Living Crisis?

Photo Courtesy: Unsplash

As the year winds down, many of us are looking forward to spending Christmas with our family and friends. Many of us have also spent a considerable amount of time and money shopping for gifts to give said family and friends– a luxury that has arguably become a social expectation. However, the current economic reality in the UK means many will not be able to afford this luxury. Domestic gas prices have skyrocketed by 129% since October of last year with electricity prices similarly rising by 66%. Even with the limit imposed by the Energy Price Guarantee on charges, nowhere near enough financial stability has been achieved for the majority of citizens given the current economic downturn which the government has arguably done more to exacerbate than alleviate. With this in mind, if ordinary citizens are already struggling to stay afloat and unable to spend their own money on these ‘luxuries’, should MPs receive Christmas benefits funded by these same citizens?

 The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) have suggested that MPs could claim expenses, with the caveat that expenses should be claimed to “a reasonable standard”. Whether any standard is reasonable at such a time of economic uncertainty, or indeed at any time, is of course deeply contestable. The current guidelines mean MPs would be able to claim expenses for office Christmas parties, which includes spending for food, decorations and non-alcoholic drinks. Unsurprisingly – or perhaps surprisingly given the sheer amount of government sleaze we have witnessed in recent years – these guidelines have been largely rejected by MPs, with the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, calling IPSA’s suggestion “naïve”. However, IPSA is supposed to disregard MPs' personal feelings so that it can impartially regulate MPs expenses. Only you would think given its raison d’être – the 2009 expenses scandal – that the regulatory body would enforce stricter spending standards rather than advise more spending. 

Issues surrounding MPs’ bonuses and expenses are especially prone to exposure and contestation in periods of economic instability, and rightfully so. Even the mere suggestion of taxpayer money funding MPs’ leisurely activities will undoubtedly incite tensions. The concept of Christmas bonuses, in particular, highlights the absurdity of advising laxer spending rules. Christmas is a near ubiquitous tradition in the United Kingdom, regardless of religious affiliation. Using tax funds to pay for MPs' Christmas celebrations while regular citizens cannot make ends meet let alone secure the funds to properly participate in Christmas is not the kind of “giving '' typically inherent in the tradition. In fact it is reflective of a tremendous and unjust inequality between people and government in this country. A government, at least a democratic one, which the UK purports to be, is funded by the people’s tax money not so that it can line its own pockets but so that it can serve the people’s interests.

As the 2009 expenses scandal and the existence of IPSA make clear, this is not the first time government sleaze has been called into question. Just last year, Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire, was found to have broken rules on paid advocacy, resulting in his eventual expulsion from the Commons in November 2021. Conservative MP Dame Andrea Leadsom had then tabled an amendment on a new House of Commons standards committee favourable to Owen Paterson’s situation. This generated significant backlash forcing the government to decide against the change, one that would have favoured ‘privacy’ over accountability. Paterson had reportedly not been informed about the government’s decision and has since decided to  take the government to the European Court of Human Rights – an institution which the arch-brexiteer had ironically spent a lot of energy campaigning against – claiming that his right to privacy had been breached. The ongoing case highlights yet more irony: Owen Paterson, in his former role as Secretary of State, had expressed his support for hard-hitting cuts on government spending, in general. Of course, he conveniently did not look into reducing staff bonuses or expenses.

It has been suggested that if we are to keep MP Christmas bonuses, that expenses should at the very least be means-tested, a supposedly agreeable compromise. However, this approach would challenge the extent to which a care for “privacy” was a legitimate reason to limit MPs’ accountability in the Owen Paterson case as establishing whether or not expenses are in line with such a standard would require investigations into MPs' personal finances. Of course, it is entirely possible that MPs do not deserve to have publicly financed Christmas parties at all. After all, the notion that anyone else deserves being obligated to fund them seems absurd. Funding Christmas parties for politicians is surely not the object of government. This is all the more obvious in light of the staggering differences between the living standards of the average citizen and the average MP. The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the UK in 2022 sit around £33,000. The average MP, on the other hand, benefits from a salary of roughly £80,000 per annum. The suggestion that any wealth should be transferred from the average citizen to fund MPs' Christmas parties is downright insulting. And any wealth transferred from those lucky enough to make more than your average MP should surely go to alleviating the current economic crisis for those that are less fortunate, not to funding the entertainment of a comparably well-off and politically powerful class of individuals. This is not necessarily to suggest that MPs should earn less but rather that any Christmas bonus afforded to MPs during a cost-of-living crisis lacks any awareness, is incredibly out of touch and is frankly insulting. 

The government should instead focus its efforts and resources – which are, in truth, our resources – on getting us out of the mess that, if it did not create, it at least made significantly worse. Hopefully, that way we can all enjoy this Christmas and the many Christmases to come.