Every month, indeed every week, there are individual statistical releases that ministers and shadow ministers keep a beady eye on. From GDP to homelessness, the Office for National Statistics website provides ammunition for a varied range of interests.
Yet there is one official, annual number that has a very direct impact on MPs of all stripes: the October average for public sector earnings (published in December). Why? Because this is the metric that determines the pay rise for Parliament itself.
That magic number has now come in at 7.1 per cent, so MPs are in line for a “bumper” wage rise that will increase their income from £86,548 to £92,731 in 2024/5. Their pay increase alone amounts to more than £6,000 – a sixth of the entire annual earnings of the average Briton. If the hike goes ahead, it would be the highest for MPs since their salaries were dramatically increased in 2015 by a whopping 10 per cent.
David Cameron previously described the rise as “unacceptable”, but in a bid to keep his Parliamentary troops on board after squeaking home with a small majority in the general election, he changed tack. Cameron said MPs should accept the cash as the right “rate for the job” – even though his Government then unveiled plans to freeze public sector pay for four years.
And it’s the contrast with some public sector staff, as well as falling inflation, that will make next year’s planned rise particularly difficult. The 7.1 per cent will be higher than the five per cent award for most NHS staff this year. With CPI inflation currently running at 4.9 per cent, and due to fall further next spring, MPs will also be getting an inflation-busting pay packet.
It’s worth pointing out that responsibility for MPs’ pay rests with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which took over the job after the 2009 Commons expenses scandal. And Ipsa, which meets in the New Year, has the flexibility to amend the rise despite the 7.1 per cent metric on average earnings. Back in 2020, Ipsa backed off another plan for an inflation-busting pay rise for MPs, following an outcry amid the Covid pandemic.
Ipsa chief Richard Lloyd said at the time: “It is clear that applying the forthcoming official statistic for public sector earnings growth would result in a salary increase for MPs that would be inconsistent with the wider economic data and would not reflect the reality that many constituents are facing this year.”
Given the cost of living crisis that is still squeezing many Brits, a similar logic should apply when Lloyd and his Ipsa team meet to make their decision.
MPs have already faced a backlash over plans to use taxpayer cash to help them write a CV if they get booted out of Parliament. According to a Freedom of Information request by the BBC, they will have access to a career coach to help them identify their transferable skills, and write a CV “that stands out in the crowd”.
Separately, there will be a big increase in the payoffs that MPs get when they lose their seat or decide to step down at the next election. The so-called “winding down” payments, designed to help them close their offices, will more than double from £8,600 to £17,300.
Already 71 MPs have announced they will walk away from the House of Commons next year. There’s no question that several MPs, in all parties, privately believe they deserve better pay. Labour MPs say that they don’t want Parliament to become the preserve of those with independent means, while Tories say that a “market rate” means they should get much more.
It’s true that for most of Parliament’s history, MPs were unpaid and relied on private income or the patronage of local landowners. Some even bought their seats or inherited them from aristocratic families. It was only in 1911 that they received a salary for the first time: £400 a year, compared to the average annual wage of £70.
MPs won’t be the only winners if the pay rise goes ahead. Members of the House of Lords are on track for a big windfall, with their tax-free daily “attendance allowance” likely to be increased by 7.1 per cent, from £342 to £366.
Earlier this month, viewers of ITV’s I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! shared the amazement of jungle campmates when Nigel Farage informed them that peers get paid £300 just to turn up, have a subsidised lunch, briefly attend a debate and then “piss off home”.
The Lords’ reputation is already being sullied by the presence of Michelle Mone, the former Tory peer who has admitted lying that she stands to profit from PPE contracts issued during the Covid pandemic. The mysterious ennoblement of Charlotte Owen, the youngest-ever life peer appointed by Boris Johnson, doesn’t help either.
Frustrations with the standard of MPs have led some to argue that paying them more will attract a “better” calibre of Parliamentarian. ITV News’s political editor Robert Peston has called for the number of MPs to be cut by two-thirds, while massively increasing their pay to £250,000 a year.
There are two problems with Peston’s plan. First, there’s no way the public would ever agree to such sums. Secondly, reducing the number of MPs would make them much less locally accountable as they’d have to cover huge constituencies.
The other real difficulty is that it would make it impossible for MPs to resolve local “casework” that often comes up in their constituency surgeries. And although some see this as a chore, and resent being used as a “stop of last resort” for people who’ve fallen through the cracks of their local council or NHS system, many more appreciate being able to make a direct difference.
That’s why the real pay increase that would make more sense would be the pay of Parliamentary and office staff, rather than MPs. A big increase in staffing budgets, to help MPs cope with the casework that many struggle with, would make a major difference to our democratic accountability.
But most important of all, MPs have already seen their pay increase since 2010 by 31.7 per cent. Meanwhile, many public sector workers have seen a real terms pay cut over the same period.
Nurses in particular saw a real-terms drop of 5.3 per cent in their weekly pay from 2009 to 2022. And civil servants – who don’t forget are often the people who actually deliver on ministers’ policies – have seen median salaries reduced in real terms between 12 per cent and 23 per cent. Whatever Ipsa decides, MPs should prioritise their pay first.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
