Unions angry as 'underpaid' MPs call for huge pay rise

Friday 11 January 2013 11:00
Comments

Members of Parliament believe they deserve a 32 per cent hike in their salaries – with nearly 70 per cent saying they are underpaid for the job they do.

A survey carried out by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) found that Conservative members of Parliament on average wanted a £31,000 increase in their basic salary to £96,000 a year, while their Labour counterparts felt they deserved a £12,000 hike to £77,000. Currently MPs are paid around £65,000 a year.

The suggestions drew stinging criticism from union officials and the TaxPayers' Alliance last night.

Ipsa is conducting a review of MPs pay and pension entitlements and is due to publish its recommendations later this year. But an initial report yesterday published the findings of an anonymous survey of MPs.

Despite setting strict public sector wage limits of 1 per cent for the next two years – and recently voting for the same below-inflation uplift for those on most benefits – significant numbers of MPs did not believe the cap should be applied to them.

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said MPs are "living in cloud cuckoo land" and should "get real" about what kind of pay the public would accept. "This shows they are totally out of touch with working people... when the rest of the country is being told to tighten their belts".

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of said: "Hiking politician's wages at a time of pay freezes, benefit caps and necessary spending cuts would be completely unpalatable to taxpayers. To do so would suggest that there is one rule for MPs and another for the rest of the country."

Overall nearly 30 per cent did not believe the 1 per cent limit should apply to them, including 34 per cent of Tories. Ipsa confirmed that the limit would apply to them for the next two years after which there will be a fundamental reform of both MPs pay and pensions.

A number of MPs commented that their pay should be increased because they had additional costs that were not covered by expenses.

One said: "The costs associated with doing the job should be recognised. For example, we receive endless requests for raffle donations, breakfasts, teas, dinner, lunches, etc. We frequently have to entertain people. And we spend money on things which cannot be claimed back."

Another added: "An MP earns less than a deputy head teacher in the bigger schools in their constituencies, every pharmacist, GP, Police Area Commander, in my case seven employees of the local council. And this is all before you consider the substantial costs that an MP is unable to recover – including entertaining."

Ipsa's chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, said its new approach on MPs' pay was a "crucial step in helping Parliament to regain the trust of the public".

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in