MPs cover their backs
Salary arrangements for MPs should not be subject to anti avoidance rules, but other innocent people are unable to exclude themselves from poorly drafted legislation
THE DISGUISED REMUNERATION legislation has caused a headache for many. Advisers, who cannot get their head round the 59 pages of explanation, businesses, who do not know whether their completely legitimate third party payment agreements will get caught in this legislation, and your very own correspondent, who has been left scratching his head over the various provisions.
Part of this head-scratching was induced by the one group of people who will not have any problems with the legislation – namely, MPs, who have specific provisions to ensure that their (I must add, perfectly legitimate) third party payment agreements are excluded from the legislation.
It would have been unfair if the arrangement for MPs salaries – in which they are paid by an independent body as a result of the expenses scandal – fell under DR rules.
But this simply highlights the problems with the legislation. Most people, who do not get to write legislation, cannot slip in a provision to ensure their legitimate arrangements are specifically excluded.
Why can’t MPs rely on the strength of the legislation in itself?
