Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th December 2009

MPs secretly lobby for pay rise after expenses curb

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 November 2009
MEMBERS of Parliament are privately pushing for a significant pay rise to compensate them for the biggest crackdown on their expenses in parliamentary history.
The long-awaited report from Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee on Standards in Public Life yesterday called for an end to MPs claiming mortgage interest payments on expenses and employing family members from the public purse.

Aware of the public a
nger over the issue, all of the main party leaders said they accepted the recommendations in full.

But behind the scenes, a number of MPs are now lobbying for a pay review after the Kelly report made clear that the next generation of parliamentarians must atone for the sins of current members. While few MPs wanted to break cover and openly call for the raise, a significant number now want to see basic pay rise from its current level of £64,766.

But Sir Stuart Bell, the senior Labour MP who is regarded as the unofficial "shop steward" of MPs and sits on the Members Estimates Committee, which helps determine allowances, also suggested a pay review.

He highlighted Sir Christopher's recommendation that the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) look at the pay structures for MPs "so that in the longer term we can marry pay structures with allowances in such a way that the dreadful allowance system is abolished for all time".

A senior Scots MP told The Scotsman that there "was nothing modernising about working for slave wages" and that MPs would almost certainly have to be paid more.

Efforts to increase pay have been made easier by the Kelly review, which has said that the SSRB would set pay, without any need for an MPs' vote. At present, the review body recommends pay increases but MPs have to publicly vote for the increase. In the past, the body has often recommended generous rises for MPs which have previously been vetoed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Any move to increase pay is likely to outrage constituents at a time when many are enduring their own pay freeze. But no pay review is expected until after the general election.

Sir Christopher himself said if there was a chance people could be deterred from being MPs, this should be addressed through "the arrangements of MPs' pay, not through retaining an overly generous and overly lax expenses system".

Solicitor General Vera Baird also hinted at a pay rise. "We will have to look at where Sir Christopher's proposals will leave people. If there is a danger that people who are just ordinary but who have a commitment to public service and want to come to Parliament are going to be priced out of this, then of course pay will have to be looked at," the minister told the BBC.

"I don't want a care worker who has decided they want to come to Parliament to feel they can't run two houses on the new terms, so we have to look at this." The IPSA would have to look at "whether there needs to be compensation" to stop MPs from being "frightened" away, she added.

Mr Brown has also urged Sir Christopher to ensure people from modest backgrounds would not be deterred by a regime that was too punitive.

But Tory frontbencher Grant Schapps said it was "preposterous" to consider raising MPs' pay just as they were trying to distance themselves from the expenses scandal.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said MPs were already paid double the national average so should not be fishing for rises.

Sir Christopher's review would impose a cap of £1,250 a month for rent or hotel stays. MPs in future will not be allowed to claim for mortgage interest, and any capital gains made on their properties from now because of public funds will go back to the taxpayer.

Other changes will include a ban on hiring relatives and scrapping the resettlement grant of up to £65,000 for MPs who stand down voluntarily.

MPs will also be stopped from "double-jobbing" – which would mean someone such as First Minister Alex Salmond could not hold a Westminster seat and one in a devolved administration.

The expenses review was triggered by leaked details of MPs' allowances. After years of attempting to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information laws, MPs were finally exposed when details of all individual claims were leaked to the Daily Telegraph by a disgruntled former Commons official.

Sir Christopher said that his blueprint was "fair and reasonable" and would bring the House of Commons into line with other walks of life and other legislatures.

Both Mr Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron have urged their MPs to back the changes and adopt them without question.

MPs jeered when Speaker John Bercow told them the new IPSA head, former TV host Sir Ian Kennedy, would earn up to £100,000 a year for chairing the body.

Mr Bercow warned MPs not to prevaricate in adopting the recommendations.

The changes will take up to five years to enforce for existing MPs, although those elected at the general election next year will immediately have to comply. MPs will have no vote on the IPSA's plans, though they will be asked in a few days to approve Sir Ian's nomination.

What they can – and cannot – claim

ACCOMMODATION

MPs will be banned from claiming for mortgage interest. Instead, they will have to rent, at a maximum of £1,250 a month. New MPs will have their accommodation vetted by a commercial agency appointed by parliament's independent regulator. This will stop MPs renting homes to each other.

They will also have to pay back any capital gains made as a result of public funds from yesterday until the day they sell the property. MPs representing constituencies within a 20-mile radius of London will lose their second-home allowance. Taxpayers will stop funding any mortgages within five years. The practice of "flipping" homes will also be stopped.

STAFFING

Spouses and relatives will no longer be able to work for MPs. All family arrangements will be phased out within five years. Work by MPs' staff will be audited to ensure they are not engaging in party political work.

RESETTLEMENT GRANTS

Any MP voluntarily standing down will lose the resettlement grant of up to £65,000 by the time of the election after next. They will receive eight weeks' pay instead. MPs who lose their seats at an election will receive one month's pay for every year of service, up to a maximum of nine months' pay. MPs who fiddle their expenses or breach the code of conduct will have a penalty deducted from their resettlement grant.

DUAL MANDATE

The practice of MPs sitting in other parliaments or devolved administrations while holding a Westminster seat will be stopped by 2011. MPs from Northern Ireland, 16 of whom have a dual mandate, will have until 2015 to give up one of their jobs. First Minister Alex Salmond is the only Scottish MP to also hold a Holyrood seat but he is standing down as an MP at the next general election.

TRAVEL

Expenses will only be allowed for journeys where the primary purpose is parliamentary duties, rather than for party political visits. MPs will also be made to fund their own commuting within London. They will be able to claim for first-class train travel only for long journeys, and can be reimbursed only for economy air travel.

OTHER EXPENSES:

Council tax, utility bills, telephone line rental and calls, security, contents insurance and removals at the start and end of a tenancy will be reimbursed. But MPs will no longer be able to claim for cleaning, gardening and furniture, or for accountancy fees to fill out tax returns. They will also lose their £10,000 communications allowance.

New watchdog

MPS will have their pay and pensions set by a new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

The body takes over the duties of the Commons Fees Office, which lost the public's confidence after the expenses scandal. Ipsa will also have the power to recommend sanctions for MPs who break the rules.

Sir Ian Kennedy was selected by a committee chaired by Commons Speaker John Bercow to lead Ipsa. An expert on the law and ethics of health, Sir Ian is Emeritus Professor at University College London and chaired the Healthcare Commission from 2003-9. He also chaired an inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary and in the 1980s hosted several editions of Channel 4's discussion programme After Dark.

He will receive a salary of up to £100,000 a year in the new post – over £30,000 more than a back-bench MP's basic pay.

Sir Ian said he would start work immediately and a consultation paper will be put forward in early December. After a brief period for consultation, the new scheme will be in place early next spring.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 November 2009 11:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Cynicus Unbound,

04/11/2009 23:29:19
MPs salaries already put them in the top 2% of earners in the country.

What more do they want?

Let those who feel short-changed go and get themselves a proper job. That would have the added benefit of keeping MPs in touch with life in the real world.
2

Campaign Lawer,

Elgin 05/11/2009 00:20:57

I hope they all go on strike.

Then we can sack the lot of them.

Greed! Greed!& more Greed!
3

cynicalm,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 00:23:41
Well said #1. The reason for paying MPs is to ensure that the plebs can afford to stand for election, not to set up a professional political class.
This is a part-time job which allows MPs to carry on with journalism, speaking tours etc so that £60,000 does not seem a niggardly stipend.
4

Gaswork,

Dormanstown UK 05/11/2009 00:44:04
With all the duck ponds and money behind the Mps wine drinking lavish eating tax evasion money for questions within the rules I hate all of them greedy MPs if you don’t like it get another job and now you what more for a job you haven’t done in the first place your greed is quite unbelievable yet you remain unchanged you get many times more than what the law says you can live on so please go or shut up greedy MPs
5

,

05/11/2009 00:57:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

05/11/2009 01:05:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Fletty,

05/11/2009 01:07:16
2% of top earners but doing just 20% of a normal jobs workload , whilst having more than 300% the amount of normal holidays = 0% value for money.
8

Mallory,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 04:06:41
Nice work if you can get it - now how about swapping jobs with some of these unhappy bankers who are running to the headhunters. Risk free gambling with other `people's money is the same for both.
9

Jings MacCrivvens,

05/11/2009 07:20:54
Does their greed know no end?
For untrained, unqualified and generally unskilled people, their current salaries are far more than adequate.
A more equitable salary would be to pay them the average salary of their respective constituents. This would give them the same incentives that they are always banging on about in their quest to increase "productivity". This would of course mean the lowest MP salaries being paid in the likes of Glasgow which has suffered more than half a century of neglect by its Labour MPs whilst enriching the MPs themselves.
10

sam the god,

05/11/2009 08:05:54
snouts in the trough again
11

Ben Thehoose,

05/11/2009 08:07:34
Just how is £60k pa 'slave wages'?

MPs should want to be MPs in order to serve the nation, not get rich.
12

paulr,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 08:17:10
They get paid too damn much as it is...
13

TWC,

exLabour 05/11/2009 08:22:10
Vote them out especially those who were known fiddlers and if they are not standing vote yjeir party out.

This country has debt growing at a rate of £6000 a second and still the troughers are thinking of themselves.

Makes you sick.
14

mr broon,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 08:28:26
Just wait for some deselected or retiring MP to break ranks and sell his story to the highest bidder?
15

,

05/11/2009 08:28:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Tynietiger,

05/11/2009 08:29:26
Where is Pravda’s coverage of Willie Bains poor performance at Glasgow North East hustings where he was heckled and repeatedly contradicted Labour government’s policies on numerous subjects.
Where is the coverage of him being jeered at Labour’s 2005 Annual Conference?
From The Guardian web site:
Labour divided over secondary strikes
• Matthew Tempest, political correspondent, in Brighton
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2005 19.28 BST
Ed Blissett, of the GMB, backed the move, warning that it was "simply unacceptable that in the third term of a Labour government" workers could be sacked while absent from work due to sickness or maternity leave.
William Bain, from Glasgow NE, was jeered when he claimed the call amounted to a "return to the employment practices of the 1970s or '80s".
The current Labour candidate was the disgraced Lord Martin of Springburn’s election agent and that former Speaker Martin claimed expenses for using the living room in his £400,000 mansion (bought without the requirement of a mortgage incidentally) as his constituency office.
At a hustings, hosted by the non-affiliated PCS, the Labour candidate was repeatedly heckled by local people let down by 12 years of broken promises by the UK Labour Government and 90 minutes of lip service by the Labour candidate.

Local man, Daniel O'Donnell from Carntyne, said the following to Willie Bain:
"As we say in Glasgow, there's a tinny rattle about ye...you're an
absolute disgrace...you're haunting Carntyne where all the old folk
live...you've brought lower life expectancy...you've run this place to its
knees. I'd rather voter for the f***king devil himself than vote for you."

The Labour candidate also described Glasgow's Labour Council's policy of
schools closures as "the wrong decision" despite snubbing local parents
during the campaign.



17

Linda,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 08:43:55
Which MPs. I would bet that it was Tory and Labour MPs who are wanting pay rise and not SNP or Lib Dem MPs who are in general not in politics for purely career purposes.
18

ChrisEH26,

Penicuik 05/11/2009 10:28:11
We need to let the MPs know that they will need to come out on strike to get any pay increase. Once they are on the picket line, we can sack them all and get someone else in to do a better job for far less money (doesn't need to be anyone special as very few could do such a bad job!)
The other option would be a pay increase with a corresponding cut in the number of MPs (ie: 50% pay rise means a 50% cut in MPs, or my preferred option of 100% rise and 100% cut)
19

Chris,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 10:48:52
"MPs will also be stopped from "double-jobbing" – which would mean someone such as First Minister Alex Salmond could not hold a Westminster seat and one in a devolved administration." But, of course, this doesn't apply to Foulkes who can apparently do a full-time job in the House of Lords and still do a full-time job as an unelected list-MSP.
20

bennachie,

Aberdeenshire 05/11/2009 10:55:24
Would it not be fair to both the taxpayer and the MPs to provide the MPs with a set allowance. An allowance based on the rent of a two-bedroomed apartment located say at a range of five kilometres distance from the Houses of Parliament and located to provide transport by means of the London underground. Any additional costs to be paid privately by the individual MP.
21

Alec M,

Falkirk 05/11/2009 11:00:35
#19 - Agreed - but I think I heard or read recently that M'Lud is standing down in 2011 - probably to keep his old mate Martin company on the red benches and teach him how to claim his allowances to the last penny.
22

TWC,

exLabour 05/11/2009 11:03:47
Vote them out

16 Tynietiger, he got a real doing on Good morning Scotland this week for his repeated attempts to talk only devolved matters.

I see no comments allowed on Mad Dog, the guy is a spopulatr as a f4rt in a spacesuit, he must be single handedly losing the readership with his pro Labour bias.
He is doing nothing for SLAB as a party.
23

tommy M,

Scotland 05/11/2009 11:05:02
Wullie Bain opposer of worker's rights- jeered by his own party.

Another snout in waiting.

He already lives and works in London, is he telling that to the electorate in Glasgow NE?
24

Jo Public,

05/11/2009 11:15:00
If MPs want a pay rise they will get it - no doubt about this. Why? Because they themselves are in charge of deciding what they should get paid. A ludicrous position. They can vote themselves a huge pay increase and we, the public, can do nothing about it.

Joe Public gets squeezed - Fat Cat MPs get more. The rich get richer - the poor get poorer. The lawmakers benefit from their own laws.

Obscene.

25

Seannair,

05/11/2009 11:34:22
This blag is beginning to make the Daily Record appear to be an authoritative commentator of the current political scene.......only kidding
26

Skip McClendon,

05/11/2009 11:43:34
A mere £64,766 for occasionally shouting "hear, hear" and waving some papers you haven't read, then remembering to walk through lobby voting doors as instructed by the whips? Talk about your slave wages! I don't know how the poor wee lambs manage to get by!
27

malcyh,

05/11/2009 12:16:02
I am all in favour of a review of their wages. Presumably they can also be cut as well as go up. Lets pay them what they are worth and that would certainlt not be what they are currently on - it would be a lot less!
28

Jo Public,

05/11/2009 12:19:00
#26. A lot of them get by on two, three and four times this salary by being on the board of independent companies and receiving a salary. About time this was disclosed - as well as their attendance record at the Commons. If MPs only attend 1 day a week, they should only receive one fifth of their £64k salary. Seems fair to me - that's what happens when Joe Public works part time - he/she gets part time wages.
29

morris,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:00:47
As I understand this they cannot now claim for mortgages, but they can claim for rent ,so they buy houses, RENT FROM EACH OTHER , and still have the mortgage paid BY THE TAXPAYERS as far as I can work it out.
They are a bunch of greedy hypocritical parasites and have long lost any principles of socialism or decency which they maybe once pretended to have.
Unless there is a clause or mechanism which prevents rental from another MP then its another BIG CON.

Is there one?
30

morris,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:02:50
27 I have long said we should find a way of introducing Performance related pay in Westmidden.WE WOULD SAVE A FORTUNE !
31

Frank Spencer and Betty,

05/11/2009 13:08:44
"A senior Scots MP told The Scotsman that there "was nothing modernising about working for slave wages" and that MPs would almost certainly have to be paid more."

Who is this "senior Scts MP" clown?

The Scottish MP's at Westminster are getting paid to do absolutely nothing with regard to Scotland. All they are doing is interfering in English matters. These MP's have never had queues at their door before the Scottish parliament came along and now they are not needed at all.

With the advent of the Scottish parliament their wages etc should have been slashed by at least 30%.

Scotland does not need these MP's at Westminster, it is a waste of some £30 million per year. We do not need three parliaments to run us and neither does any other country and that includes England. Time to get rid of these unemployed Scottish MP wasters!
www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
32

Frank Spencer and Betty,

05/11/2009 13:10:35
#31

Should have said:

With the advent of the Scottish parliament their wages etc should have been slashed by at least 70%.
33

lulach mac gille coemgain,

05/11/2009 14:13:28
Remember! Remember! the Fifth of November!
34

morris,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 14:29:16
What I find totally ridiculous is the present system was introduced to allow MPs to earn more whilst everybody else was tightening their belt.
They were "leading by example" it was claimed and keeping their pay increase to a minimum, (but to cushion the blow they could claim expenses for everything under the sun, no accountability, no receipts ,and whatfew rules did exist were ignored as not applying to them)!
Then when exposed for the rotten filthy pig swilling grunts that they are, they offered to pay back part of the swag and are subsequently declared the " Right Honourable member for Scraping in the Trough" again.
They can get away with fraud but you could be in deep water for speaking too vociferously and not letting them away with it!
Who said law makers cannot be law breakers?
Now they are trying to win back the public trust by keeping the swag,and introducing a new con trick plus an increase in salaries whilst everybody else loses their job house respect and way.
Guy Fawkes where are you? Come back ALL IS FORGIVEN!

35

Hickory,

US 05/11/2009 14:41:49
Aye, the flyin' monks never stop. That tickle in ye pocket's the fingers of a monk. They want it all.
36

john birkett,

St Andrews 05/11/2009 17:45:45
#1, 3 & 7 among others : don't forget their diamond-encrusted platinum gilt-edged (but not of course guilt-edged) pensions for life!
37

Jo Public,

05/11/2009 19:27:08
Rumour has it MPs want a £40,000 per annum salary increase (which, incidently, will no doubt happen since they themselves decide this!!)

We are heading for major demonstrations in the streets.
38

Distalgesic,

05/11/2009 19:39:33
** A senior Scots MP told The Scotsman that there "was nothing modernising about working for slave wages" and that MPs would almost certainly have to be paid more. **

"slave wages" ... aye right ya thieving gets.
39

morris,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 21:15:22
38 I think its more than a rumpour but it wont surface until after the General Election probably. I agree we should NOT let this happen.The baskets are paid to represent our views ,so start by earning your existing salary which is one popularly held view for sure!
They want a pay rise?
Many of them should be in court!
Yes we should take to demonstrations outside the Westmidden pig trough.
Its a case of the have its have it.
The have nots have not!
If you accept this nonsense then we may as well give up.
40

morris,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 21:21:42
39 It sounds like Eric Joyce again?
Normally I would have gone for Lord Guy Foulkes but he is not an MP as in the commons. He has been relegated to the sin bin upper house.
41

Arthur G,

Glasgow 20/11/2009 11:07:50
The greedy creeps are still oblivious to the bad odour in which they are held by we the electorate.

If they can't understand this, how can they possibly have what is require to run the country?

This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Pay them £60,000 pa, travel and overnight accommodation expenses at civil service rates.

Anyone, who requires more is not in politics for the benefit of his or her constituents.
travel expenses

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.