Plans to
give our elected representatives an inflation-busting pay rise from 2015 has
got people riled.
Confirmation
from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in December 2013 that it would raise the salary of MPs by
11 per cent to bring the role in line with a range of other public sector
professions has been met with some alarm.
But maybe
such alarm are unwarranted and the cries of injustice over the salary rises
unfair.
The
proposals will take effect in 2015 and will see salaries for parliamentarians
rise by £7,600 to £74,000 and the changes also see final salary pensions –
which are gradually being phased out across the public sector– become career
average pensions
.
Are MPs
worth this increase?
There are
five reasons why they might be and why we should not always get caught up in
the hysteria spouted by the press and politicians.
First, MPs
often move into politics, on the whole, from another generally well-paid
profession. Any potential salary drop (especially for those with big mortgages
to pay) will mean they are turned off politics because they will end up losing
money. Surely this isn’t good.
Don’t we
want to attract the best people to the job of making crucial decisions which
affect us every day? Let’s make sure we can get them to become MPs in the first
place.
Second, a
good proportion hold director positions in external companies for which they
are paid for. Such ‘topping-up’ of salaries has been criticised many times over
the last few years. An increased salary could help persuade MPs to concentrate
solely on their political career and not be tempted by additional offers.
Third, the
changes to pensions. Rather than MPs continuing to have a final salary scheme
(a pension whereby employers promise a specified monthly benefit on retirement)
they will now move to career average pensions.
Unlike
some other professions though, MPs cannot express dissatisfaction about such
changes through industrial action. As a form of mitigation (many probably
believed they would receive a final salary scheme throughout their political
career) putting this money back into their salary would help.
Especially
now the expenses can’t be used to cover things including evening meals, tea and
biscuits and TV licenses – something MPs would need for those late evening
votes in parliament.
Fourth,
MPs constantly go out into the community whether this be in the form of
attending charity events, opening a new hospital unit, going to church to
support a community-wide initiative, appearing at carol services, or mobilising
campaigns on issues including trafficking and fairtrade.
Although,
this is questionable of Bradford West's MP George Galloway, who seem to spend
more time aboard then in his constituency!
It’s
certainly not an easy life and in today’s news cycle it’s almost impossible to
get away from it all and not be contactable.
They can
also be recalled to parliament during a parliamentary recess, as happened during
the last summer over the government’s response to the Syria crisis. All this
means they can end up spending lots of time away from their families who often
live miles away from London.
Last, we
don’t want people coming into politics for money (David Cameron has always
talked about cutting the cost of politics) but surely the remuneration package
for MPs has to rank alongside other professionals who have reached their
pinnacle – whether this be a company director, chief executive or legal
professional?
The IPSA
chief executive Andrew McDonald has said the proposals “taken as a whole would
not cost the taxpayer a penny more” than the current system, a message he
believed had “not been heard in the hubbub of the last couple of months”
It also
says its two-year research has shown public support is split on the issue.
Let’s stop
and consider these things before joining the howls of outrage.
I tried posting a comment, but it vanished! It was a good one, too.
ReplyDeleteBasically, well done for being controversial!
I disagree with you. MPs are seen to be in a privileged position and may not deserve an 11% pay rise. Could any increase/decrease be linked to the state of the national economy?