The debate around MPs’ expenses in the UK has been raging for years, but it has resurfaced with new intensity as recent figures show Members of Parliament claimed over £150 million in expenses in just 12 months. With some MPs reportedly claiming more than £24,000 per year just for renting a second home, many taxpayers are asking a simple question: Should MPs’ expenses be stopped—or at least drastically reformed?
This blog looks at what MPs claim, why the system exists, and whether it’s still fit for purpose in 2025.
What Are MPs’ Expenses and Why Do They Exist?
MPs’ expenses were created to help Members of Parliament carry out their work. Their role involves:
Running constituency offices
Hiring staff
Travelling between Westminster and their constituency
Covering accommodation when they need to stay in London
Paying for communication, equipment, and casework
The idea behind the system is that MPs shouldn’t have to pay out of their own pockets to represent the public. But over time, the scale and types of expenses have raised serious concerns among taxpayers.
£150 Million Claimed in One Year
According to official data released by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), MPs collectively claimed over £150 million in one year. This includes:
Office costs
Staff salaries
Travel
Second-home accommodation
Council tax and energy bills
Security costs
While staffing makes up the largest share, it’s the housing and personal cost claims that receive the most public criticism.
Why Second Homes Are So Controversial
MPs who live far from London can claim for a second home in the capital so they can attend Parliament. However, some MPs claim extremely large amounts, with some spending £24,000 a year—or more—on rent alone.
This sparks major public frustration, especially when many families across the UK are struggling with:
High rents
Rising mortgages
Soaring energy costs
Council tax increases
Homelessness at record levels
The idea that taxpayers are funding MPs’ rent, energy bills, and council tax while facing their own financial pressures has understandably fuelled anger.
Are MPs Paid Enough Already?
Another part of this debate involves MP salaries. MPs earn well over £80,000 per year, not including ministerial salaries for those in government roles. Many argue that this should be more than enough to cover their living costs without additional taxpayer-funded allowances.
However, MPs counter that without expenses, the job would only be accessible to wealthy individuals who can afford two homes and heavy travel costs—reducing diversity in Parliament.
Should the Expenses System Be Scrapped or Reformed?
Here are the arguments on both sides:
Arguments for scrapping or reducing expenses:
Taxpayers shouldn’t fund luxury rents or second homes
£150 million a year is too high
MPs should live within their salary like everyone else
Public trust in politics is already low
The system is open to misuse without strict oversight
Arguments for keeping expenses:
MPs need accommodation in London to do their job
Staff salaries and office costs are legitimate
Removing expenses may discourage people from becoming MPs
Expenses prevent Parliament from being dominated by the wealthy
The Public Wants Transparency
Most people aren’t necessarily saying “scrap everything.” What they want is:
Stricter rules on what MPs can claim
Caps on accommodation and personal costs
Full transparency on where taxpayer money goes
Better oversight to prevent abuse
Taxpayers deserve reassurance that their money is being spent responsibly, especially during a cost-of-living crisis.
The issue of MPs’ expenses isn’t going away. With huge sums being claimed and rising public frustration, the system clearly needs closer examination. Whether the answer is to scrap some allowances, cap them, or overhaul the whole system entirely, one thing is certain: the public wants change, accountability, and fairness.