Expensive Times

When I was a child autumn was my favourite time of year – a time of conkers, new stationery and better TV. However, as an adult, I have learned to dread the approach of autumn because it now heralds an ancient evil…

Like many self-employed people autumn signifies the underfoot crunch of scrunched up receipts, unforgivably chirpy adverts featuring Adam Hart-Davis (who’s going to replace him this year? My money is on Robert Peston) and that ‘hospital ward green’ headed notepaper (which is its official name on the Dulux colour chart). Yes it’s HM Revenues and Customs tax return. As usual this year I have been scrupulously fair with my expenses. I’ve even calculated the percentage of orange M&Ms per packet and only charged for them. So it has been good to know that I’m not alone in my struggle – MPs are also suffering.

This week ministers returned to parliament to a letter from Sir Thomas Legg, telling them that things they had claimed for on expenses have been retrospectively assessed as illegitimate and they will have to pay the money back. I can only imagine the horror. I have no idea how I could possibly be expected to write if I didn’t have a taxpayer-funded gardener for my imaginary garden.

Westminster has been full of the sound of little feet stamping this week (and not only because Hazel Blears is back from recess). Our elected representatives are furious at being asked to pay the money back. Ann Widdecombe went on the BBC earlier in the week to warn that if such rules had been changed retrospectively in any other walk of life then there would be court cases. But rules do change retrospectively from time to time and the rest of us are expected to put up and shut up.

Take the Vehicle Excise Duty changes that came into force in May 2009. These meant that anyone who bought a particularly polluting car after March 2001 (i.e. before hybrid cars were easily available) was penalised retrospectively for that decision by having to pay extra road tax. I happen to be all for extra charges for extra pollution. However, the sad fact is that the energy it takes to scrap such a car and build a new replacement car far outstrips the pollution these cars will cause by being kept in service. Penalising people retrospectively for buying old cars may be good for the economy (it incentivises people to buy new cars) but it’s not necessarily an environmental solution.

There are other proposed retrospective rule changes that are long overdue. Jack Straw recently put forward proposals in the coroners and justice bill to allow the UK to prosecute war criminals living in Britain who committed crimes before 1991 (although students and those ‘passing through’ would still be immune from prosecution). This could see people who committed genocide in Rwanda and the Congo finally brought to justice. Here ‘retrospective’ is clearly a polite way of saying ‘about bloody time’.

However, the retrospective element of the new MPs expenses rules seems to be largely a punitive measure for the gratification of a public baying for blood. It may not be ‘fair’ – but since when was fairness important in rules? Much legislation is unfair to people who aren’t MPs, which comes as no big surprise as it’s made by MPs.

I find it very difficult to understand why MP’s expenses cannot be brought into line with HMRC self employment guidelines – retrospectively or otherwise. I don’t begrudge MPs charging necessary expenses to enable them to do their job but I don’t see why they shouldn’t have to abide by the same rules as the us. And surely after an 83 day break even they should be fresh enough to face a tax return?

And maybe there is a small part of me that would like to see Douglas Hogg having to call the Inland Revenue helpline at 8pm on a Saturday to justify his moat…