11% pay rise may not add up for British MPs

11% pay rise may not add up for British MPs

LONDON- When the British Parliament was hit by a massive scandal about its members' misuse of official expense accounts, it tasked a newly created Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) with the job of ensuring that the MPs' pay and perks would never again attract controversy.

But controversy is precisely what this watchdog is now generating, as it plans to unveil later this week proposals for an 11 per cent pay rise for MPs at a time when the salaries of British civil servants remain flat and the country is only slowly emerging from its biggest recession in generations.

Fearing a voter backlash, it has led ironically to a stampede of MPs, all falling over one another in promising that they never wanted the extra money and would not touch it when offered.

Until a century ago, British MPs were paid nothing; theirs was a job reserved for "gentlemen of private means".

And, even when salaries were introduced on the eve of World War I, they were never intended to provide an MP's chief source of revenue: Parliamentary sessions deliberately started in the late afternoon and went through the night in order to allow lawmakers to have a "proper day job", usually as a barrister or a banker.

Largely as a result, any move to raise MP pay levels proved troublesome given the general assumption among voters that the lawmakers must be rich.

As a result, parliamentarians avoided the politically toxic subject and, over time, pay scales were seriously eroded: In 1911, an MP's salary was six times the United Kingdom average earnings, yet by 1979, when prime minister Margaret Thatcher came to power, the same salary was less than double average earnings.

Meanwhile, MPs turned to the elaborate system of parliamentary expense accounts to supplement their income.

The result was a huge scandal in 2009, when it emerged that they charged everything from bath plugs to shelters for their pet ducks to the taxpayer.

The creation of the Ipsa in 2010 was meant to put an end to this: Staffed by distinguished retired civil servants, it set out to address the questions of both parliamentary pay and perks.

Ipsa's plans to cut the value and scope of parliamentary expenses were readily accepted. But its proposal to raise MPs' yearly salaries from their current £66,396 (S$136,000) to £74,000 by the time of the next election - which must take place in 2015 - surprised both legislators and political commentators.

The total sum involved is not big - an overall extra cost of £4.6 million a year to the national budget - but it raised several nettlesome issues.

Part of the problem is that the Ipsa admitted it had no specific formula for calculating what it considers adequate pay.

Sir Ian Kennedy, the watchdog's chairman, also admitted in a public discussion paper that "there is no compelling evidence" that MPs' current salary levels are deterring candidates from standing in elections, or persuading them to leave Parliament.

Nor did the Ipsa accept the argument that if MPs are paid less, that would affect their status in society: "The status, legitimacy and standing of MPs flow from their position as the elected representatives of their constituents, not the size of their pay packets," it said in its report.

Nevertheless, Sir Ian Ken insisted that, although "there is never a good time for such a move", British politicians' pay must "catch up".

He pointed out that, even after his suggested rise kicks in, MPs will be earning only three times the national average.

Politicians are scrambling to disassociate themselves from the move.

A spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron told the media that his government "is committed to reducing the cost of politics".

Meanwhile, the Taxpayers' Alliance, a leading pressure group committed to cutting government expenditure, claims to have opinion poll evidence that "the public simply don't back the increase".

Short of abolishing the watchdog which they established, there is little MPs can do but accept the pay hike when this is tabled by Ipsa tomorrow.

Meanwhile, many politicians have resorted to another tactic to protect themselves from irate voters : a public announcement that they would refuse the extra cash.

Opposition Labour party chief Ed Miliband has asked for cross-party talks to stop the pay hike as it "did not have public confidence".

The ruling Conservatives are, however, divided. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has openly rejected the idea of a big salary rise while Education Secretary Michael Gove dismissed the increase as "silly".

But Mr Michael Walker, the party's deputy leader in Parliament, said that he is "not going to turn the pay rise down because I don't want my constituents thinking they've either elected a millionaire to represent them, or a saint".

One conclusion is, however, clear enough: The attempt to palm off the sensitive issue of MPs pay to bureaucrats has failed.

The question is back where it belonged: in the hands of politicians, to justify both their work, and the expected remuneration.


Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of web browsers.