MPs’ security bill up 15-fold to £2.5m after Jo Cox murder

SPENDING on the security of MPs has soared in the wake of the Jo Cox killing, according to their latest expenses claims.

There was a 15-fold increase in security spending from £160,000 to £2.5million, underlying growing concerns about the safety of politicians following the murder of the Labour MP in June 2016.

The figure was released by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) yesterday in its review of claims for 2016-17.

Mrs Cox was shot and stabbed as she attended a surgery in her constituency of Batley and Spen, West Yorkshire.

Ipsa receives recommendations on appropriate measures from the police, including the counter-terrorism divisions. This can allow MPs to buy or lease security equipment such as alarm systems, CCTV and personal alarms. It will also fund any ‘enhanced measures’ recommended by the police.

Chairman Ruth Evans, said: ‘Following the tragic events of June 2016, there was a big increase in the total expendi- ture on security, rising to £2.5million during this year.

‘It is important that we take the security of MPs, and that of their families and their staff, very seriously.’

Overall, Ipsa revealed that claims for spending on travel, subsistence and accommodation rose by 7 per cent last year to £13million. Travel and subsistence accounted for £5.3million – up from £4.89million – and the bill for accommodation for the 650 MPs was up f rom £7.26million to £7.7million.

However, the overall bill for running MPs’ offices fell from £113.6million to £109.9million as there was no additional election spending. The general election in the 2015-16 period pushed up expenses and included around £10million in extra ‘winding-up’ costs such as staff redundancies.

Office costs went up from £ 11.3million to £ 11.5million, while staffing claims rose from £80.2million to £84.6million.

The number of MPs employing ‘connected parties’ – family members – fell from 195 in 201516 to 152 last year. Ipsa has banned politicians from taking on any new connected parties, meaning the figure should fall further in the future.

Labour MP Jamie Reed was the highest claimer overall, with a total of £243,279. He stood d o wn in the Cumbrian constituency of Copeland at the June election and some of the costs are associated with the winding-up of his office.

Nationalist MPs dominated the list of the highest 20 claims – with Alex Salmond the second highest claimant in 2016-17.

The former First Minister received £235,366.70 in his final year at Westminster – including £140 for repainting his office front door.

Mr Salmond lost his seat along with 20 Nationalist colleagues in June’s General Election – with several other f ormer MPs high on the list, including Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and Paul Monaghan.

Argyll and Bute MP Brendan O’Hara was third on the list with a £235,366.70 expenses bill and Mr Monaghan was fourth, receiving £ 235,299 back on expenses i ncluding travel, accommodation and costs.

Other Nationalists on the list include Joanna Cherry, current Westminster leader Ian Blackford and Hannah Bardell.

Scottish Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael also made the top 20 claiming back £216,235.64.

Last night, the SNP insisted expense claims by its MPs were higher than average due to the long distances travelled to and from parliament. A spokesman office said: ‘ These expenses include travel costs for MPs from some of the most far-flung constituencies in the UK, and help ensure SNP MPs continue to stand up f or Scotland in Westminster.’

Kettering’s Tory MP Philip Hollobone had the l owest expenses bill. However, he also had £17,000 of misclaimed travel costs written off by Ipsa.

He had opted to receive the London Area Living Payment of around £ 3, 800 a year, reflecting the fact that his main residence was in the capital. But he kept claiming for travel between his constituency home and London.

The issue was not noticed until a review by Ipsa highlighted that several MPs had ‘unwittingly’ breached the rules over a number of years.

In all, £ 26,394 of wrongly claimed expenses were written off by the watchdog.

Ipsa concluded that there had been a ‘high degree of compliance’ by MPs with rules on claiming expenses.

‘High degree of compliance’ ‘Most far-flung constituencies’