mps travel allowance

Victorian MPs spend hundreds of thousands on travel allowances despite tight budget looming

Topic: State and Territory Parliament

Dozens of Victorian MPs have claimed thousands of dollars for overseas trips. ( ABC News: Paul Sellenger )

Victorian MPs have charged taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for overseas travel for "electorate business", with a warning from integrity experts that MPs must "pass the pub test" and not exploit the payment during a cost-of-living crisis. 

Voters consistently name cost of living their biggest concern and Treasurer Tim Pallas has already foreshadowed that his 10th budget in May will be "very, very tight".

An ABC analysis of MPs' travel claims lodged with parliament for 2023 shows the majority did not access an annual international travel allowance of $10,765, which is paid to perform public duties overseas.

But dozens did.

In the past financial year, parliament paid out $204,660 in international travel allowances, and a further $287,013 in domestic travel allowances.

Asian countries the top destinations for Victorian politicians

International travel allowance claims lodged with the state parliament show India and China were a popular destination for travel among MPs from both sides of politics, while Thailand was also a destination of choice for several Liberal MPs keen to see the impacts of the country's decriminalisation of cannabis.

Parliamentary allowance records show that Shadow Minister for the Arts David Davis charged taxpayers nearly $10,000 for a European tour that included visits to Thessaloniki, Athens, Crete, Milan, Paris and London where he "met government, regional, municipal and gallery officials".

Mr Davis told the ABC it was a productive trip that was "busy and relentless" and included a discussion with UK MPs about integrity laws and meetings with officials in Lombardy, which has a sister-city relationship with Victoria.

Mr Davis, Liberal leader John Pesutto and frontbenchers Jess Wilson , Ann-Marie Hermans , James Newbury and David Southwick  also claimed at least $4,800 each to go on a trip to Israel with the Australian Israel Jewish Affairs Council.

Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto claimed around $5,000 to go on a trip to Israel with the Australian Israel Jewish Affairs Council. ( AAP: Diego Fedele )

Due to the war in Gaza that trip has been postponed.

Some, including Ms Wilson, have repaid the money, while others said the trip would go ahead at a later date at no additional cost.

"All MPs are entitled to travel for matters relating to their electorate, parliamentary and portfolio duties. Any travel should represent value for taxpayers and all expenses are reported and disclosed to parliament as is appropriate,'' a spokesman for Mr Pesutto said.

He said the Israel trip was important, noting that it had been "undertaken by a number of leaders and MPs from both sides of parliament over a number of years to strengthen trade and investment ties between Victoria and Israel".

Labor MPs also made several overseas trips in 2023.

Upper house MP Lee Tarlamis made two trips to India in 2023, one costing $4,689 and another costing $6,971. In his declaration he said the objective was "to strengthen the relationship between Victoria and India. My electorate has the largest population of Indians in Victoria".

Lee Tarlamis and Dylan Wight both travelled to India in 2023. ( ABC News/Instagram )

In his February trip, he travelled with fellow MPs Matt Fregon , Meng Heang Tak and Dylan Wight . The group met with film and TV producers, visited a waste-to-energy plant and the Taj Mahal.

"I travelled to India to strengthen the relationship between Victoria and India, make contacts with business executives and government officials, and comprehend the shared values and interests of our governments to inform my job as their Legislative Council representative,'' Mr Tarlamis said in his travel report.

Warragul-based Liberal MP Wayne Farnham flew to Phuket in July to see the impact of Thailand's decriminalisation of cannabis. He claimed $3,340 for the trip.

"Given [Phuket's] popularity with tourists, I knew I would get a very good gauge how it has affected the local communities and tourism and tourists' attitude towards the legalisation of cannabis," Mr Farnham's travel report said.

Mr Farnham met with local police, two Australian bar owners in the tourist town, as well as having conversations with locals and tourists.

"Nearly all the locals I had spoken to are against it as they have already seen the negative it has had for their communities and I believe their experiences can be directly related to what could occur here in Victoria if such a change was to be proposed,'' his report said.

Wayne Farnham says his trip to Thailand was to explore the decriminalisation of cannabis in the country.  ( ABC Gippsland: Madeleine Spencer )

Mr Farnham also joined shadow ministers Brad Battin and Richard Riordan on a two-week trip of India and Sri Lanka. The MPs claimed between $5,000 and $10,000 each for the trip.

"As India is one of Victoria's largest trading partners in education it is important to build relationships to enhance future opportunities that will benefit both India and Victoria,'' the trio's travel report said.

Integrity expert says expense claims must pass 'pub test'

Monash University political expert Zareh Ghazarian said travel allowances were a double-edged sword with obvious benefits to improve learning and understanding as long as it was done properly.

"The question is does it pass the pub test? So, it's up to the MP that it does,'' Dr Ghazarian said.

"The trip's value may be questioned by the electorate, in particular the local community they are representing. That's the risk.

"If these trips are seen as tangential or not directly relevant by the MP's community, local area then it can be a potential political problem for the MP."

MPs claiming international travel allowance must produce a written report for the parliament. The ABC does not suggest any MPs have broken parliament's rules.

Catherine Williams, executive director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said the travel allowance afforded MPs a valuable opportunity to enhance the performance of their public duties, but it required politicians to be transparent.

Catherine Williams says transparency with travel allowances was key given the tough economic conditions faced by many Australians. ( ABC News: Darryl Torpy )

"Members should be judicious about demonstrating a clear connection between the expenditure and one of the permitted purposes: a tenuous connection is likely to result in justified cynicism from Victorians — particularly in the context of a cost-of-living crisis,'' Dr Williams said.

The travel claim disclosures are made every quarter and are published individually on parliament's website in PDF form. There is a push from transparency experts and some in parliament for the system to be digitised so that the public can access information about their MPs more easily.

International travel sends allowance claims soaring

Narre Warren South Labor MP Gary Maas claimed $6,215 from the parliament to attend a progressive political action conference in Chicago. Netroots Nation bills itself as "a non-profit organisation that provides trainings, resources and connection opportunities to help progressive activists create a more progressive and just world".

Mr Maas said his trip was for electorate business and he wanted to research "the latest platforms and techniques from progressive parties and organisations to be able to provide information and receive feedback from constituents via different platforms".

"There are actually good things to learn, and the allowance is there for that purpose,'' Mr Maas told the ABC.

The premier and cabinet are entitled to separate ministerial travel expenses. Former premier Daniel Andrews 's controversial trip to China in late March cost $82,000, while Treasurer Tim Pallas went to Asia twice, costing at least $60,000 (final figure still not determined).

Daniel Andrews and Tim Pallas racked up expenses of more than $100,000 following trips to Asia.  ( AAP: Joel Carrett )

Other international travel allowance claimed included former opposition leader Matthew Guy travelling to Argentina, Liberal frontbencher Roma Britnell flying to Singapore and tourist towns along the northern NSW and Queensland coast, dumped Labor MP Will Fowles heading to China and New Zealand, and rookie Labor MPs Belinda Wilson and Emma Vulin both flying to India to undertake research and to represent views of constituents.

Shadow Industry Minister Bridget Vallence went to London and has already booked return flights to Athens and Auckland this year, costing $9,912.36. She said the trips were electorate business to "explore economic issues, and investigate industry and innovation opportunities relevant to the state".

Outspoken Liberal MP  Bev McArthur made two trips, one to South Korea where she investigated "issues of significance to business, educational providers and healthcare operators in electorate and discussing planning, energy, infrastructure, high speed rail, tunnels and rail operations, robotics, healthcare, trade and investment".

Upper House Liberal MP Bev McArthur visited Thailand with colleagues to examine the country's cannabis laws. ( Supplied: Bev McArthur )

Ms McArthur was also part of a trio of Liberals to visit Thailand in April 2023. Ms McArthur, Renee Heath and Nick McGowan 's tour aimed to find opportunities for trade and partnerships in education and healthcare as well as understand Thailand's cannabis laws. The team met with local politicians, businesses and Australian trade officials.

"Our delegation achieved the outcomes sought, forging links with Thai businesses, officials and government representatives, as well as with Australian individuals, companies and organisations operating in Thailand,'' the report states.

Mr McGowan paid for the trip out of his own pocket.

Victorian MPs Bev McArthur, Renee Heath and Nick McGowan visited Thailand to better understand the issue of cannabis decriminalisation. ( Supplied: Bev McArthur )

Speaking engagements, kangaroo advocacy and delegations to Armenia

Exiled Liberal MP  Moira Deeming – who is currently suing the opposition leader for defamation – claimed $2,500 to attend a conference in Sydney as a speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)  alongside Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott, Warren Mundine and Senator Jacinta Price.

According to her claims declaration, Ms Deeming said she "was invited to attend and speak at CPAC discussing my role as a state MP and women's rights, Victorian laws and other various matters relating to issues impacting the Western Metropolitan Region".

"I also attended other events post conference representing my electorate regarding issues facing everyday families and changes to parental laws," Ms Deeming said.

Moira Deeming claimed $2,500 to attend a speaking engagement in Sydney ( Facebook )

Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell hopped on a plane to Los Angeles and Washington DC in September to meet with kangaroo advocacy groups and other animal welfare organisations as well as members of Congress and their offices, which the upper house MP said was "electorate business".

Georgie Purcell travelled with NSW MP Emma Hurst to the United States in September last year. ( Instagram )

Ms Purcell said she met with SPCA, the American cousin of the RSPCA and the Stray Cat Alliance – tackling feral cats is a big issues in northern Victoria.

Of particular issue was discussion on proposed US laws banning the import of kangaroo skins as well as bans on greyhound racing in the USA. She claimed $4,030 from parliament.

"I absolutely got something out of this, it was very beneficial, I can say hand on heart that it was very busy,'' Ms Purcell said.

Liberal backbencher Kim Wells flew to Armenia for six days in September with his colleague Ann-Marie Hermans . The objective of their trip was whether to decide if they would support a "Parliamentary Friends of Armenia" and/or be members of the group.

Mr Wells charged parliament $9,456.19 for the tour, but records show Ms Hermans did not make a claim. She has claimed $5,868 for a trip to Israel.

The Armenian travel report said the mission would determine whether to "work with other MPs to bring forward a motion to the parliament to acknowledge the 1915 Armenian Genocide. At this point, we are probably in favour of the friendship group, and need more information regarding the Armenian Genocide motion".

Shadow Special Minister of State David Hodgett spent nearly $9,000 on a trip to Korea as well as $2,701 on trips to Adelaide and Brisbane for electorate business.

There are other allowances MPs can access. MPs who represent regional and rural electorates can claim the Parliamentary Accommodation Sitting allowance if they own or rent a Melbourne property for sitting weeks of parliament. The lucrative allowance starts at $26,609 and increase if the MPs holds higher office.

In 2022-23, parliament paid $327,028 to regional MPs who rent or own a home in Melbourne, including Premier Jacinta Allan .

"Parliamentary travel for members of parliament or committees is not a matter for government. We would expect all parliamentary travel to represent value for Victorians," a government spokesperson said.

MPs’ staffing and business costs

MPs are elected to represent your interests and concerns at a national level. They receive public funding which allows them to run a local office and employ staff.  

We allocate specific budgets to MPs to pay for these roles and activities.

The Scheme of MPs’ Staffing and Business Costs sets the rules on what MPs can and can’t make claims for.

You can view MPs' staffing and business costs in a variety of ways using the icons below, ordered by financial year. The financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

Explore individual business costs in alphabetical order.

Review data for all MPs’ costs and claims.

Read about MPs’ annual salaries and pension scheme.

Learn about MPs’ claims

Discover how and why MPs claim for their staffing and business costs.

Other payment data

Read about how we publish details of security and disability costs, any debts written-off, as winding-up and Capital Gains payments.

Constituency mileage

During the 2019-20 financial year we piloted a new approach to reimbursing MPs for the mileage costs they incur travelling around their constituencies.

Parliamentary entitlements: what’s allowed and what’s not?

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Queensland Senator Fraser Anning has used taxpayer funds to pay for flights to Melbourne to attend a protest with far-right extremists.

Anning’s use of taxpayer money for what many argue to be inappropriate reasons is another in a line of Australian MPs using their parliamentary entitlements in ways that have riled the public.

Who can forget former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s helicopter ride to attend a party fundraiser, which in the end cost her the job.

Read more: Bronwyn Bishop finally resigns as Speaker

Such incidents have fuelled a public perception parliamentary entitlements are excessively generous. Fraser Anning defended his attendance at the rally, saying: “It’s official business. I am a senator. I didn’t go there for a picnic.”

Ministers do need to travel to perform official duties relating to their portfolio. MPs have to represent their electorate, as well as perform their parliamentary duties in Canberra. Public funds should be provided to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and without impediment.

But some MPs have been accused of rorting the system with exorbitant or improper entitlements claims. So, what are parliamentarians entitled to claim?

Official business, representing value for money

Above their base salary, politicians can claim certain additional “entitlements”, which are better conceived of as work expenses and allowances.

Bishop’s so-called “choppergate” scandal led to a review of the parliamentary entitlements system and, consequently, the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority in July 2017. The Authority is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the travel and other parliamentary entitlements.

The new parliamentary expenses framework is based on two main principles.

First, MPs are able to claim reasonable costs incurred for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. MPs must not seek to disguise as official business an activity whose dominant purpose is personal or commercial.

Secondly, the costs incurred must represent value for money.

Read more: Turnbull makes a good start on expenses, but needs to go further

Under current legislation , MPs can claim for domestic travel expenses, including the cost of commercial flights, cars and private vehicles for travel within Australia. With prime ministerial approval, ministers can also claim overseas travel costs, as well as the travel costs of their staff and spouse.

These entitlements are limited to travel relating to parliamentary or electorate duties, or party political duties connected with their membership of parliament.

Under “family reunion” benefits, MPs’ spouses and dependants may join them in Australia several times a year.

MPs are also entitled to claim a travel allowance for each night they have to stay away from home for parliamentary business. But there is a ten night limit for party political duties outside Canberra and electorate duties outside the MP’s electorate.

What falls under the rules?

• Flights to Canberra and accommodation costs during the parliamentary sitting period
• an MP’s travel within their electorate to meet with constituents
• overseas flights by a minister on portfolio business that have been approved by the prime minister
• flights interstate to attend a formal meeting of the political party or a national, state or territory party conference. These are political party expenses connected to the MP’s role in parliament
• travel by ministers as part of their portfolio duties, such as travel interstate by the minister for Education to negotiate with the states on education policy.

What doesn’t fall under the rules?

• Flights interstate to attend a friend’s wedding. This is a personal expense and not parliamentary business
• a private jet chartered to fly to Canberra for a parliamentary sitting. Under the new principles, this is probably not value for money for a scheduled event
• flights interstate to attend a party fundraiser. This is a party political expense unconnected to a MP’s role in parliament.

What about the grey areas?

It becomes murky when politicians have mixed motives in undertaking travel. For instance, former health minister Sussan Ley travelled to Queensland to make an announcement at a breast cancer clinic as part of her ministerial role. During her trip, she bought a A$795,000 apartment at an auction from a Liberal donor, which was said to be “neither planned nor anticipated”.

In such cases, politicians tend to argue their travel was for the dominant purpose of undertaking official business and their private affairs are incidental to this.

Read more: Sussan Ley and the Gold Coast apartment: murky rules mean age of entitlement isn't over for MPs

While such situations may comply with the rules, they tend to fail the so-called “pub test”. Although she didn’t break any rules, the public outcry led to Sussan Ley resigning from her role as the health, aged care and sport minister. Her statement read :

Whilst I have attempted at all times to be meticulous with rules and standards, I accept community annoyance, even anger, with politicians’ entitlements demands a response.

What happens when rules are breached?

So, is Fraser Anning’s trip to Melbourne for the weekend protests within the rules?

It depends on whether the trip was for the dominant purpose of parliamentary business. Anning’s electorate is in Queensland, which means there is less justification he was representing his electorate by travelling to Melbourne.

Anning’s argument was that Queensland was experiencing similar issues with crime gangs as Victoria.

However, attending a protest in Melbourne about purported Victorian crime issues would seem to have, at best, a tenuous connection with his duties of representing the Queensland electorate.

The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority can make a ruling on whether the claim was in accordance with the law. If the claim contravenes the law, the MP has to repay the money. Where the MP has not repaid their claim within 28 days, an additional 25% penalty may apply to the debt.

As holders of high elected office, MPs are the custodians of public trust. But some MPs have made claims from taxpayer funds that are out of step with public expectations. It is incumbent on the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority to carefully police such claims.

• Bronwyn Bishop
• Parliamentary entitlements
• Fraser Anning

Project Manager SSTP

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Not much work but lots of perks for Indian MPs

​ Privileges of a Parliamentarian

The winter session of Parliament got over without scoring anything on key bills. The Lok Sabha ran for a total of 19 hours 26 minutes in 21 days, not even averaging an hour a day, thanks to the ruckus by Parliamentarians. If you compare that to the perks an Member of Parliament enjoys, it's not a very great output. So how much do our MPs make? Here's the break-up:

From a monthly salary of Rs 50,000 to quarterly laundry service worth Rs 75,000, our MPs literally don't spend on anything. Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members are entitled to receive a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month during the whole term of office. An MP is entitled to a daily allowance of Rs 2000 per day if he or she signs the Parliament register everyday.

Office expense

A total of Rs 45,000 is entitled to each MP for office expenses. Out of these, Rs 15,000 is for meeting expenses on stationery items and postage, and Rs 30,000 is paid by the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat to the person. Under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), each member can recommend to the concerned District Authority, developmental works to the tune of Rs 5 crore per annum to be taken up within the constituency.

Travel allowance

A member is entitled to travel allowances if he/she is travelling for official purposes such as to attend a Parliament session or to attend any meeting of Parliamentary committee or on a duty related to his office. Air travel: MPs pay one and one-fourth of the airfare. Every member can avail of 34 single air trips during a year. The spouse/companion can travel alone eight times in a year to meet the member, which comes under the total of 34 journeys. By Rail: MPs get one free non-transferable First class AC or Executive class of any train and one First class and one Second class fare. Road travel - MPs are entitled to Rs 16 per km travelled.

Free phone calls

Every member is entitled to three phones. Out of which, one must be installed in the house or office in Delhi and one at the MP's usual place of residence. He/she can have one mobile phone connection of MTNL and another mobile phone connection of MTNL/BSNL or any private mobile operator with national roaming facility. They can make 1,50,000 free local calls in a year. A free 3g connection is also given.

Guess the price of the food available in the canteen? A veg thali costs Rs 30 and a non veg thali costs Rs 90. A list of privileges enjoyed by the MPs is here

To post this comment you must

Log In/Connect with:

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

• Accessibility
• Website Help
• MPs' expenses

These disclosures provide information about travel and accommodation expenses for members of Parliament. These expenses are administered by the Parliamentary Service and Office of the Clerk.  Related information about travel and accommodation for Ministers is available on the Department of Internal Affairs website.

This link provides detailed guidance on understanding the expenses .

• Title ascending
• Title descending
• Date ascending
• Date descending
• Understanding members' expenses View more View less 22 August 2024
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2024 View more View less 22 August 2024
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2024 View more View less 23 May 2024
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2023 View more View less 29 February 2024
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2023 View more View less 07 December 2023
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2023 View more View less 24 August 2023
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2023 View more View less 25 May 2023
• Member's expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2022 View more View less 30 March 2023
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2022 View more View less 24 November 2022
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2022 View more View less 25 August 2022
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2022 View more View less 26 May 2022
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2021 View more View less 24 February 2022
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2021 View more View less 25 November 2021
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2021 View more View less 26 August 2021
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2021 View more View less 21 May 2021
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2020 View more View less 25 February 2021
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2020 View more View less 03 December 2020
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2020 View more View less 27 August 2020
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2020 View more View less 21 May 2020
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2019 View more View less 05 March 2020
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2019 View more View less 28 November 2019
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2019 View more View less 29 August 2019
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2019 View more View less 23 May 2019
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2018 View more View less 28 February 2019
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2018 View more View less 29 November 2018
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2018 View more View less 16 August 2018
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2018 View more View less 10 May 2018
• Members' expense disclosure - 1 October to 31 December 2017 View more View less 22 February 2018
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2017 View more View less 26 October 2017
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2017 View more View less 27 July 2017
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2017 View more View less 20 April 2017
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2016 View more View less 16 February 2017
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2016 View more View less 20 October 2016
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2016 View more View less 18 August 2016
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2016 View more View less 28 April 2016
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2015 View more View less 25 February 2016
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2015 View more View less 22 October 2015
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2015 View more View less 30 July 2015
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2015 View more View less 30 April 2015
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2014 View more View less 12 February 2015
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2014 View more View less 23 October 2014
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2014 View more View less 31 July 2014
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2014 View more View less 24 April 2014
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2013 View more View less 30 January 2014
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2013 View more View less 24 October 2013
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2013 View more View less 01 August 2013
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2013 View more View less 18 April 2013
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2012 View more View less 14 February 2013
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2012 View more View less 18 October 2012
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2012 View more View less 02 August 2012
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2012 View more View less 26 April 2012
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2011 View more View less 09 February 2012
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2011 View more View less 27 October 2011
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2011 View more View less 04 August 2011
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2011 View more View less 28 April 2011
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2010 View more View less 10 February 2011
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2010 View more View less 03 November 2010
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 April to 30 June 2010 View more View less 29 July 2010
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 31 March 2010 View more View less 29 April 2010
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 October to 31 December 2009 View more View less 25 February 2010
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 January to 30 June 2009 View more View less 29 October 2009
• Members' expense disclosure from 1 July to 30 September 2009 View more View less 29 October 2009
• Members of Parliament
• Parliamentary parties
• Electorate profiles 2020
• Pay and services
• House seating plan
• Member ECO Lease Disclosures

Is it fair for MPs to claim expenses for their children?

George Osborne and Ed Miliband among 148 MPs claiming money for their younger families

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

THE Parliamentary pay watchdog is allowing almost 150 MPs to claim expenses associated with their children's accommodation and travel.

Chancellor George Osborne was among 148 MPs – with 300 children between them – who registered their "dependants" so they could claim more cash, according to the Daily Telegraph .

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which monitors MPs' pay and expenses, has said that the arrangements are within the rules. But critics have nevertheless labelled the expenses as "unfair".

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

It is thought that nine ministers, as well as senior Labour figures Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, were among those who made claims in order to rent larger family-friendly properties or pay for their children's travel. The allowances come as MPs look likely to receive a £10,000 pay rise.

Many MPs, who have a basic wage of £66,000, insist they should be compensated for the costs because they are required to have two homes.

Since 2010, MPs have reportedly claimed almost £140,000 for their children's travel. They can also claim up to £2,425 for each child who 'routinely resides' with them. However, more than 90 MPs are believed to have claimed above the accommodation cap of £20,000 a year.

Laura Perkins, a barrister who confronted Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on his LBC radio phone-in show about benefit changes, told the Telegraph: "At a time when the finances for ordinary families are so tight, they need to think long and hard about whether what they are doing is fair. Every other family is having to meet expenses out of their ordinary salary."

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Expenses are there to cover extra costs, not subsidise luxury apartments at taxpayers' expense."

But Caron Lindsay, co-editor of Liberal Democrat Voice , has said the expenses are "worth paying". She argued that removing these allowances might reduce the variety of MPs in Parliament, putting off parents with young children from standing. "On this one, I'd say leave them alone."

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - strange sons, Democratic cheer, and more

By The Week US Published 25 August 24

Talking Point Neolithic people travelled much further afield than previously thought to choose the famous landmark's central altar stone

By The Week UK Published 25 August 24

Cartoons Artists take on enthusiasm overload, the audacity of hope, and more

Today's Big Question A message shared across far-right groups listed more than 30 potential targets for violence in the UK today

By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published 7 August 24

Speed Read The anti-immigrant violence was spurred by false rumors that the suspect in the Southport knife attack was an immigrant

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 5 August 24

Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 16 July 24

Under the Radar Migrants 'unlawfully detained' since 2021 shipwreck on UK-controlled Diego Garcia, site of important US military base

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 15 July 24

Speed Read The Conservatives were unseated after 14 years of rule

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 5 July 24

Today's Big Question Belief that result is 'foregone conclusion', or that politicians can't be trusted, could exacerbate long-term turnout decline

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 12 June 24

Today's Big Question US, UK and Australia seek to expand 'game-changer' defence partnership ahead of Republican's possible return to White House

By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published 22 March 24

Today's Big Question PM's pledge to deliver economic growth is 'in tatters' as stagnation and falling living standards threaten Tory election wipeout

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 16 February 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

MPs can only claim £25 a day for food if they stay overnight outside London or their constituency

What was claimed.

MPs get £25 per day food allowance. That adds up to £845,000 per year for all MPs.

Our verdict

MPs can only claim this allowance for food if they stay overnight outside their constituency or London for parliamentary work. This is not what they can claim for every day of working in parliament, so this larger figure is meaningless.

A number of posts on Instagram and Twitter have made claims about how much MPs can expense for food per day. The posts say:

“Didn’t even realise MP’s get a £25 per day food allowance. £125 per week £1300 per year ( per person) £845,000 per year for all MP’s £800k + of our taxes go towards feeding MP’s on £80k a year while children go hungry. If that doesn’t bother you then you have a problem”.

MPs are allowed to claim up to £25 in food expenses per night, but only if they are staying overnight outside of London or their constituency as part of their parliamentary activities. This £25 can cover food purchased during the day but cannot include alcohol.

Therefore, the calculations done in the original tweet don’t make sense, as it’s extremely unlikely that every single MP would stay overnight outside either London or their constituency every week day that they work. As acknowledged by the person who originally posted the claim, an error in their calculation also means that even if this were true, the figure would be far higher than £845,000.

We can’t easily tell exactly how much MPs have claimed in total in expenses for food, as this data is published in a category combined with travel expenses. However, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority also publishes individual MPs’ expenses claims , and some of these are broken down into more specific categories, such as “Food and Drink”.

The post does correctly state that MPs are paid a basic annual salary of £81,932 , as of April 2020.

As one of the posts mentions, the bars and restaurants within the Houses of Parliament are effectively subsidised, as they run at a loss . Staff (which includes MPs) and visitors can also use these outlets, and the cost of these catering services (which the House of Commons classes as the cost minus the sales income) was £2.6 million in 2018/19. We’ve written more about this topic here .

This article is part of our work fact checking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content— here . For the purposes of that scheme, we’ve rated this claim as partly false because MPs only get a £25 food allowance if they stay overnight outside their constituency or London, not for every day they work.

• By Grace Rahman
• Share this:

Was this helpful?

Full Fact fights for good, reliable information in the media, online, and in politics.

Related fact checks

• Kremlin photo does not show ‘severe electricity shortage’ in Moscow due to sanctions
• Image of child shot in the head was taken in Yemen not Gaza
• The Pope has not appointed Klaus Schwab ‘universal bishop’
• 9.4 million people are classed as economically inactive, not unemployed
• Video of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech where she seems to call herself a gay man is altered
• Did you find this fact check useful?

Full Fact fights bad information

Bad information ruins lives. It promotes hate, damages people’s health, and hurts democracy. You deserve better.

This article is free to read if you register or sign in.

Simply register at no cost.

Questions or problems? Email [email protected] or call 0711 046 000 .

Scrap Senate, MPs travel allowances to reduce wage bill – MP

Nabwera says senate functions can be conducted by the national assembly, which is currently performing more functions..

• The Mp's sentiments come after the Senate proposed to scrap off bursary funds in the counties, constituencies and at the national government
• The house proposed that the funds be channeled to the Ministry of Education for free education

Lugari MP Nabii Nabwera has called for scrapping of the Senate to reduce the wage bill.

He said Senate functions can be conducted by the National Assembly, which is currently performing more functions.

Nabwera said MPs and governors play better roles when it comes to service delivery.

"MPs have a direct role to Kenyans, we issue bursaries, build health facilities and schools with CDF money," Nabwera said.

"Please tell me what do you need from the Senate or what is the Senate doing for you?"

The lawmaker spoke at Ebusakami Primary Schoo in Luanda subcounty.

He urged President William Ruto to scrap off traveling allowances for MPs, saying they were elected to serve Kenyans.

"Lawmakers who want foreign trips should fund them from their pockets of go for ambassadorial positions," Nabwera said.

"The money the MPs are being paid as travel allowance is enough to provide free medical services to all Kenyans in public hospitals."

The Mp's sentiments come after the Senate proposed to scrap off bursary funds in the counties, constituencies and at the national government.

The house proposed that the funds be channeled to the Ministry of Education for free education.

The proposal came following reports that bursaries do not reach the vulnerable majority.

Nabwera also wants the Sh40 billion allocated to the military to be slashed to Sh20 billion, arguing that the country is not at war.

Vihiga Senator Godfrey Osotsi said scraping off the Senate is a shortcut to kill devolution.

Hue said devolution has brought development in counties that were neglected by the national government. 

"Scrapping the Senate will give an open cheque of corruption to counties and devolution will not achieve the goals intended," Osotsi said. 

Osotsi further dismissed claims that the Senate is at war with governors stating their key role is to ensure devolution works.

"We aren't a ​ t war with Governors, our key function is to ensure governors and their administrative units within the devolved units deliver their manifesto," he said. 

Osotsi said what some of the MPs are now pushing is war of supremacy between the two houses and seeking to ground devolution. 

Ruto names 20-member taskforce to audit health resources

A first for uasin gishu as sh1.4bn own source revenue collected, sh27bn bounty: jackpot for learned friends, most popular, 31 busia mcas sent home as azimio takes control assembly, latest videos, why raila fits the bill for auc mudavadi, we give you raila because africa deserves the best – gachagua, sign up for the free star email newsletter and receive the latest kenya news daily..

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Climate 100
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Wine Offers
• Betting Sites

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Why MPs might be denied a vote on winter fuel payment cuts

Use of parliamentary procedure has made it hard for opponents to force a vote on the highly controversial changes to pensioners’ hardship payments, as john rentoul explains.

Article bookmarked

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

M ore than half of the members of the House of Commons are newly elected, and may be surprised to discover they may not be given the chance to vote on the controversial decision by chancellor Rachel Reeves to withdraw winter fuel payments from pensioners who are not on pension credit.

This will provide them with an early crash course in some of the basics of how parliament passes legislation.

What kinds of law are there?

There are two main kinds of legislation: primary and secondary. Primary legislation starts as a bill, which is debated and voted on at different stages of its passage through the two houses of parliament, until it receives the royal assent and becomes an act.

Secondary legislation takes the form of statutory instruments; these are simpler documents, laid before parliament by ministers under powers granted to them by an act. Debates and votes on them are not guaranteed.

There are two ways that parliament approves of statutory instruments: the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure. The change in the law on winter fuel payments was made in a statutory instrument laid before parliament on Thursday under the negative procedure.

What are the procedures for secondary legislation?

Under the affirmative procedure, a statutory instrument must be positively approved by both houses of parliament. That means the speaker has to read out the title of the instrument to be approved and ask that “as many of that opinion say Aye, and to the contrary No”. If the view of the Commons is unclear, there will be a division and a recorded vote, giving MPs who disagree with the law the chance to put their opposition on the record. The same sort of thing happens in the Lords, except that peers say “Content” and “Not content”.

Under the negative procedure, the statutory instrument becomes law on the day specified by the minister (16 September in the case of the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024) unless a motion – known as a “prayer” – to reject it is agreed by either house within 40 sitting days.

Any MP can table a “prayer” against a statutory instrument, but there is no guarantee that it will be voted on, because the government has to make time for it in the parliamentary timetable.

Doesn’t the government have to allow votes?

According to Erskine May , the official guide to parliamentary procedure, the government will allow time for a vote if the opposition supports the “prayer”, by convention: “Where such a motion is signed by shadow ministers, the government has normally found time for the motion to be debated, although it cannot be compelled to do so.”

Rishi Sunak tabled a prayer motion late on Friday to annul the statutory instrument, but Matthew England, a Hansard Society researcher, pointed out that Keir Starmer, as leader of the opposition, signed at least two prayer motions against statutory instruments in the last parliament that were not voted on.

From the point of view of parliamentary accountability, it gets worse. Because the winter fuel payment is a financial matter, the House of Lords does not have a say over it, so it will not be subject even to the negative procedure in the upper house. The only chance for MPs to record their opposition to the cut is if Starmer, advised by chief whip Alan Campbell, agrees to a vote on Sunak’s prayer motion.

But, as Erskine May says, he “cannot be compelled to do so”.

Could this be convenient for Labour MPs?

It is possible that Labour MPs might prefer not to have a vote. The first time they were given the chance to vote against their own government’s policy, some of them assumed that voting for an opposition amendment to the King’s Speech would be an innocent expression of dissent. But seven of them, including John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, discovered that Keir Starmer took a stern view of their decision to vote for an SNP amendment calling for the two-child limit on benefits to be lifted. They have been suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party and are unlikely ever to be allowed back.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre