100 signatures reached
To: Members of Parliament
Abolish the catering subsidy in the Palace of Westminister
It is proposed, given that the government policy of "levelling up" seems not to be working, that Members of Parliament do the right thing, and vote for a "levelling down" measure, and abolish subsidised catering in the Palace of Westminster - they can afford to.
Why is this important?
Because it is simply wrong at a time when a lot of people are struggling to feed themselves and their families because of the 'cost of living crisis' that MPs should have their food and alcohol consumption subsidised from the public purse.
At a time when public sector workers are having to resort to strike action to achieve a living wage, many people are having to choose between 'heating or eating', and there are an estimated 2,500 foodbanks in the UK, its Members of Parliament in 2023 enjoy an annual salary of £86,584, whilst members of the House of Lords receive a daily attendance allowance of £323, or £1,615 for a five day week
In addition to their generous remuneration, MPs and Lords have access to no less than 19 catering facilities within the Palace of Westminster, all of which offer subsidised food - and alcohol. The terms "subsidised" and "subsidy" are used here and throughout in their commonly understood sense, of a commodity or service being made available at a discounted price that does not reflect their true value on the open market
Following an Open Democracy Freedom of Information request last year, we now know, that that subsidy amounted to £17 million over the three year period up to 2021. It is reasonable to conclude, by taking the average annual cost of the subsidy of £5.6 million over that period, and adjusting for inflation, the equivalent figure for the period 2021 to 2024 is likely to be in the region £20 million. One can quibble about the precise figure but we know it is a sizable subsidy. This is not just about money though.
The Open Democracy article about this can be seen here and should be read by anyone interested in this petition or contemplating signing it. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/food-poverty-parliament-mps-taxpayers-cost-of-living-subsidies/
As if the disparity between an arguably cossetted legislative assembly (generous 'expenses', subsidised travel, second homes, gold plated pensions etc), and those they make laws for, were not bad enough, matters are brought into even starker contrast when one considers the apparent callous indifference MPs show towards measures aimed at ensuring that those who do not benefit from food subsidies, receive adequate nourishment - not least schoolchildren.
In January 2023 the Member for Coventry South Zara Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill to extend the eligibility for free school meals to all school children. This was prompted by evidence in her constituency and across the country as a whole, that children were coming to school hungry, (in response to which schools started Breakfast Clubs), and that additionally, many children brought in no lunch boxes, or if they did, their contents were nutritionally inadequate.
The bill received its first reading in January 2023, and then came back to the Commons in March for a second reading. Prior to the vote on the second reading Zara Sultana wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that it was estimated that four million children in the UK were in food poverty, and food inflation was at an all time high of 18.9%. Her efforts were in vain as the government effectively blocked the bill, with a second reading re-scheduled to June when Parliament is not even expected to be sitting.
It appears therefore that whilst MPs, who are amongst some of the highest paid people in the country, are happy to receive a subsidy from the public purse for their culinary pleasure, including alcohol consumption, they are otherwise perfectly content to see children going hungry, but for a subsidy for school meals which would cost a fraction of the £20 million subsidy they benefit from.
It has been argued that the subsidy benefits passholders and other groups working within the Palace of Westminster. However subsidised canteens are not standard for most workplaces, but in the case of the Palace of Westminster this does not include open access to the Members Dining Room which is restricted to MPs, and serves haute cuisine and fine wines at transport cafe prices - a recent menu for example featured "Oriental crispy lamb salad with plum dressing" for a mere £2.20
This contrasts very poorly with what most people have to pay in their workplaces for more modest fare. Nurses for example who have a much more physically demanding job nevertheless pay more for their meals than MPs as this article from Nursing Notes explains
https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/nhs-staff-pay-around-twice-as-much-as-mps-for-food-at-work/
There would appear to be an ethical and moral deficit in a legislative assembly, the ostensible purpose of which, is to serve the interests of the country rather than just their own, the sheer amount of the subsidy aside.
At a time when public sector workers are having to resort to strike action to achieve a living wage, many people are having to choose between 'heating or eating', and there are an estimated 2,500 foodbanks in the UK, its Members of Parliament in 2023 enjoy an annual salary of £86,584, whilst members of the House of Lords receive a daily attendance allowance of £323, or £1,615 for a five day week
In addition to their generous remuneration, MPs and Lords have access to no less than 19 catering facilities within the Palace of Westminster, all of which offer subsidised food - and alcohol. The terms "subsidised" and "subsidy" are used here and throughout in their commonly understood sense, of a commodity or service being made available at a discounted price that does not reflect their true value on the open market
Following an Open Democracy Freedom of Information request last year, we now know, that that subsidy amounted to £17 million over the three year period up to 2021. It is reasonable to conclude, by taking the average annual cost of the subsidy of £5.6 million over that period, and adjusting for inflation, the equivalent figure for the period 2021 to 2024 is likely to be in the region £20 million. One can quibble about the precise figure but we know it is a sizable subsidy. This is not just about money though.
The Open Democracy article about this can be seen here and should be read by anyone interested in this petition or contemplating signing it. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/food-poverty-parliament-mps-taxpayers-cost-of-living-subsidies/
As if the disparity between an arguably cossetted legislative assembly (generous 'expenses', subsidised travel, second homes, gold plated pensions etc), and those they make laws for, were not bad enough, matters are brought into even starker contrast when one considers the apparent callous indifference MPs show towards measures aimed at ensuring that those who do not benefit from food subsidies, receive adequate nourishment - not least schoolchildren.
In January 2023 the Member for Coventry South Zara Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill to extend the eligibility for free school meals to all school children. This was prompted by evidence in her constituency and across the country as a whole, that children were coming to school hungry, (in response to which schools started Breakfast Clubs), and that additionally, many children brought in no lunch boxes, or if they did, their contents were nutritionally inadequate.
The bill received its first reading in January 2023, and then came back to the Commons in March for a second reading. Prior to the vote on the second reading Zara Sultana wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that it was estimated that four million children in the UK were in food poverty, and food inflation was at an all time high of 18.9%. Her efforts were in vain as the government effectively blocked the bill, with a second reading re-scheduled to June when Parliament is not even expected to be sitting.
It appears therefore that whilst MPs, who are amongst some of the highest paid people in the country, are happy to receive a subsidy from the public purse for their culinary pleasure, including alcohol consumption, they are otherwise perfectly content to see children going hungry, but for a subsidy for school meals which would cost a fraction of the £20 million subsidy they benefit from.
It has been argued that the subsidy benefits passholders and other groups working within the Palace of Westminster. However subsidised canteens are not standard for most workplaces, but in the case of the Palace of Westminster this does not include open access to the Members Dining Room which is restricted to MPs, and serves haute cuisine and fine wines at transport cafe prices - a recent menu for example featured "Oriental crispy lamb salad with plum dressing" for a mere £2.20
This contrasts very poorly with what most people have to pay in their workplaces for more modest fare. Nurses for example who have a much more physically demanding job nevertheless pay more for their meals than MPs as this article from Nursing Notes explains
https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/nhs-staff-pay-around-twice-as-much-as-mps-for-food-at-work/
There would appear to be an ethical and moral deficit in a legislative assembly, the ostensible purpose of which, is to serve the interests of the country rather than just their own, the sheer amount of the subsidy aside.
