Dismay at proposal to award MPs 11% pay rise

MP's are in line to receive an 11 per cent pay rise. Picture: PA

The recommended pay increase, which MPs have no say over, is expected to be announced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) on Thursday.

The proposal has provoked a barrage of criticism, coming at a time of austerity when many people are going without a pay rise.

Seeking to avoid a damaging backlash from hard-pressed voters, MPs yesterday lined up to publicly condemn the plans, which would see their salary increase by £7,600 to £74,000 after the 2015 election.

That is significantly lower than the £86,250 average figure MPs told Ipsa they deserved in an anonymous survey earlier this year. A fifth of those questioned said they should get £95,000 or more.

But while a handful publicly defended the increase, prominent frontbenchers from all three main parties yesterday said the move was unacceptable when most public sector workers were getting no more than 1 per cent extra a year.

Liberal Democrat Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander said the rise was “wholly inappropriate”, while Conservative Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he would not be accepting the pay increase.

SNP First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday described the proposal as “ludicrous” and said MSPs’ salaries, which are supposed to track those of MPs, would not go up by a similar amount in Holyrood.

But former Labour minister Jack Straw defended the move, arguing that MPs’ pay was deterring talented people of “modest backgrounds” from standing.

Tory MP David Ruffley said he was “minded” to accept the rise so long as it was balanced by action to curb other costs to the taxpayer – such as a promised end to generous resettlement grants for departing MPs.

Ipsa is believed to have also drawn up a tougher-than-expected squeeze on pension schemes, forcing MPs to pay in more and the taxpayer less, on top of a crackdown on claims for dinner, taxis and biscuits.

MPs were stripped of the power to set their own pay in the wake of the revelations of widespread abuses of expenses, leaving them little or no room to block Ipsa’s proposals short of changing its role by law.

Ipsa’s research found that two-thirds of MPs believed they were underpaid and the watchdog’s chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, has insisted politicians’ pay must “catch up” after years of being suppressed.

The hefty rise is certain to play badly with voters, however, with many prospective candidates – especially in marginal seats – feeling under pressure to say they would divert the extra cash to good causes.

Danny Alexander said: “Most people will find it utterly incomprehensible that at a time of pay restraint for the public sector, at a time of further squeezes on government spending, that Ipsa should be recommending [that].

“I think it would be wholly inappropriate for MPs to get such a large pay rise at a time when every other public sector worker sees their pay rises capped at  1 per cent,” he said – adding that he would give up the extra  income.

Mr Hammond said: “So long as I’m Defence Secretary, presiding over a situation where the troops who serve our country so brilliantly are facing a 1 per cent pay rise, I won’t be taking a pay increase.”

Asked whether he would give the money to charity, he said: “I suspect there will be a strong mood in the Cabinet that we all need to say the same thing.”

Shadow chancellor Mr Balls said Ipsa appeared to have come to its conclusions “entirely out of any context of the real world”.

He said: “I think it is preposterous we should be having this discussion, and as a shadow chancellor, how could I possibly say to Labour MPs, with the economy like this, with the economy under real pressure, that they should take a pay rise?”

Mr Straw, one of the few to break ranks, said that while it was a very hard time to persuade people of the need to raise pay, voters could be persuaded by a “sober” argument that remuneration had fallen behind that of most headteachers and senior local council officers.

He said: “You will go on recruiting people of some talent who have family money or who have got many fewer family responsibilities, but you won’t get, importantly, recruitment from people of modest backgrounds.”

Lib Dem Roger Williams, meanwhile, backed the need to restore more parity with comparable roles but said the increases should have been staggered over up to ten years. “To set about remedying that all in one go is simply inappropriate,” he said.

Public and Commercial Services union general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “That an 11 per cent pay rise is even being proposed, when poverty is rife, shows a political class wildly out of touch.”

A Downing Street spokeswoman said MPs’ pay was “a matter for Ipsa” but ministers believed the “cost of politics should be going down, not up”.

Prime Minister David Cameron has not matched the pledge by the other party leaders to reject any extra money.

Do you believe that MPs should be awarded an 11% pay rise?

YES: Alan Trench- ‘They often work 70 hours a week’

Among the welter of criticism directed at IPSA’s recommendation of a £74,000 salary for MPs after the 2015 UK general election, few have considered why MPs should receive such pay.

Being an MP is far from an easy job, and it has got harder since pay for MPs was first introduced in 1911. I know from watching MPs at close quarters that most of them take the job deeply seriously, and worry about all its aspects – whether voting, speaking in the chamber, sitting on select committees, dealing with constituents’ problems and playing a wider political role too, which may include sitting on the front bench.

During the week, they spend long hours in parliament. But they have to maintain a strong constituency presence too, with regular visits, a great deal of travel, and often a life split between there and London.

Little wonder they are often working for 70 hours a week. All that makes for a tiring and stressful lifestyle. On top of all that MPs have – rightly – little job security, with at most a five-year term to count on.

They have to be reselected by their party to fight another election, and may well lose that – which means they will have to try to pick up a non-political career where they left it. That’s a pretty unpleasant sort of job offer, especially for able people who can make other choices about their working lives. For many years, there have been problems with paying MPs in line with their responsibilities. The expenses scandal began because expenses, pensions and other allowances had become a form of supplemental pay.

IPSA’s recommendations are not just about increasing the top line of parliamentary pay, they are part of rebalancing the whole package, which will mean salary takes the place of many current allowances.

MPs’ pension contributions will be increased, the generosity of their pensions reduced and the resettlement allowance cut. MPs coming into parliament in 2015 will have something that looks very like a fixed-term employment contract, not some nebulous deal relying on hidden allowances.

Given the squeeze on living standards everyone has experienced, particularly those on benefits or working in the public sector, it is no wonder this sort of increase is controversial. But representative democracy comes at a price. If the labourer is worthy of his hire for doing a difficult and necessary job, so is the politician.

• Alan Trench is professor of politics at the University of Ulster.

NO: Robert Oxley - ‘It is putting two fingers up to the public’

The idea of increasing MPs’ pay when everyone else is suffering a squeeze on their earnings is the kind of thing that only an out-of-touch, remote quango could deem acceptable.

MPs do an important job and work hard, but they already earn nearly two and a half times the national average salary and are well placed amongst their European counterparts.

An 11 per cent hike in their salaries is unjustifiable and not fair on the taxpayers footing the bill.

The extensive – and doubtless expensive – research commissioned by IPSA has clearly shown that people think MPs’ pay currently to be broadly fair, yet it has chosen to disregard public opinion and push for a rise regardless.

In so doing, this quango – which has no unaccountability – is putting two fingers up at the British public.

A few may claim the current level of pay puts many off from entering politics.

But if it were such a barrier to standing for Parliament, surely there would be a dearth of lawyers, bankers and GPs in the House of Commons.

Unsurprisingly, the opposite is true – and the last general election did in fact see a record number of candidates seeking election.

Public faith in politicians hit a low ebb in the wake of the MPs’ expenses crisis, and this proposal from IPSA will now sadly undo much of the hard work done to restore that

faith.

The contrast between IPSA proposing this 11 per cent rise while politicians rightly urge restraint in public spending and pay could not be more stark.

Some may have sympathy with the idea that this proposal is allegedly cost-neutral, as out-of-date perks are being abolished and generous pensions reformed in return for higher pay.

It is certainly right to reform the gold-plated parliamentary pensions and cut the lavish “golden goodbyes” for retiring or defeated MPs, but this should be done anyway. Many of these perks have been long overdue a serious overhaul.

Even at this 11th hour, IPSA should reconsider its remuneration proposals.

And any politician wanting to be taken seriously about cutting the deficit and getting a grip of public spending must also reject the proposed rise.

To do otherwise would leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy and badly damage the relationship between them and the people they represent.

• Robert Oxley is the campaign director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.