Are we paying MPs enough?
"From a natural justice perspective I feel a justifiable exception would be the fairest manner to deal with the current situation." , in 2006, tried to claim for a £3,100 Sony 40 inch TV set. The suggests that £750 is a reasonable expense for a television, and no one would deny that MPs need to have access to the media from their home.
There's an engaging dialogue about the ethics of remuneration here, involving two philosophers and a remuneration expert . Test case: One Conservative MP claimed 78p for two tins of pet food. Is it ethical to expense your pets' needs?
Professor James Connelly: This reminds me of Plato's The Ring of Gyges, where Plato asks: "What would you do if you put on a ring that made you invisible?" Some MPs seem to think they were wearing the ring when they put in these claims. Now they look pretty stupid.
Baroness Warnock: Absolutely not. They can feed their own bloody pets.
We've been discovering more and more about the lives of our public representatives through their receipts: how they like their coffee, where they buy their , their interior design tastes, and their husband's fondness for pay-for-view pornography.
The Northern Ireland Secretary, , apparently owns seven homes, while claiming the maximum allowance on a £1.35m London flat. And he put in a receipt for a second hand copy of a book he co-authored.
In most cases, notwithstanding the public's outrage, MPs will argue that their receipts were legitimate and related to properly incurred expenses; and I've no reason to challenge that claim. (The rules for claiming expenses are and interpreting those rules appears to be more of an art than a science). But the expenses system may be a means of increasing income for some MPs.
As MPs expenses make it into the public domain, receipt by receipt, there will be some red faces in parliament. There may even be some constituencies who consider that they'd stand a better chance of holding onto their seat in Westminster with another candidate at the next election.
Whether we are paying our public representatives enough is not a question many want to ask in the midst of an economic downturn. But the bigger picture requires us to ask about MPs' remuneration more generally. (And the remuneration debate ). MPs currently earn £64,777. That's about three times the UK national average income. Sir John Baker, former chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Board, that MPs' salaries should increase to £80,000. Some MPs argue (or whisper, more accurately) that £100K would be a reasonable figure. Another approach, which hasn't had much public discussion yet, would be to fix MPs' salaries to the national average salary. Let's say we agree that MPs should be paid four times the national average figure: that would give MPs, at the current figure, a salary of about £88,000. In order to increase their own salaries, MPs would then have to focus their efforts on raising the national average figure. Is that a workable solution?
Incidentally, take a look at how the and expenses. Members of Congress earn about £115,00, and they can claim allowances of more than £500,000 pounds to employ up to 18 staffers and run various offices. British MPs' costs and allowances (for travel, running their offices, employing staff, etc.) average about £130,000. Even the House and Senate Chaplains are paid more than a British MP. of parliamentarians' salaries.
Comment number 1.
At 9th May 2009, IMBusinessTips wrote:Surely MP's are there to serve the people. Yes they ought to be paid well but their expenses and facilities are out of control. Whitehall is far too expensive. Look what Boris Johnson has done to cut costs. Walmart, the largest retailer in the world operates from a cheap, brown field site and furnishes with second hand desks. Why can't government be based in an office block in Sheffield and just keep Whitehall as a money making tourist attraction rather than a drain on the tax payer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th May 2009, TCSRSB wrote:The major problem with paying MPs big salaries is that they are meant to represent the people that they serve. As it is almost none of them use the NHS or state schools because they can buy private so why should they (and they don't) care how poor the service is. Because they can opt out of using the services that ordinary people have to use then they have no interest in representing us or changing the things that matter to us. If MPs had to live off the average wage theyd HAVE TO USE the same education, health and public transport as the majority of people and I absolutely guarantee all three would be far far better than they are now.
Oh but it won't attract the brains you cry. Politicians justify low wages in swathes of the public sector because the jobs are "vocations". Well what higher vocation could there be than to serve your country? Higher wages will simply attract career politicians with no principles or morals - the likes of Mandleson and Blair. The motivation of money is exactly why we have the trough mentality we have now.
If you believe that higher wages will reduce greed you haven't been following the news. One of the biggest MP expense stories so far concerns a millionaire Minister. As Ministers / shadow Ministers are paid more than MPs then we should have seen little or no abuse from them. I bet they were worse than most MPs. Those big cat city bankers were also paid pretty well werent they? Notice how pop stars, film stars, F1 drivers and the wealthiest seek out tax havens - they can't possibly get by and pay tax!
If you pay MPs more you'll simply attract even more greedy people. I don't want MPs that are driven by money. I want MPs that are driven by a desire to improve the life of most people. They'll only do that if they have to live like most people.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th May 2009, The Christian Hippy wrote:Office space must be at a premium in Ballymena, £57,000 per annum, unbelievable, you probably could buy it cheaper in less than five years. It may not be illegal but it is unethical, because if these MLAs had to pay it out of their own pocket they simply wouldn't do it they would be more restrained in the use of their own personal resource's, so why do they spend our public money in an uncontrollable manner.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 10th May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Why should someone want to become an MP if the pay is so poor that you have to literally steal from the public coffers and risk getting caught to make ends meet? Is it the higher calling of public duty? Is it the drive to obtain polticial power? Is it the need to make your imprint on how the country is run and make it better by your own hand? No I don't think so, it's because the unlegislating life is not worth living :-)
Hey if you think the MPs stole a lot of money for their own high style living, look at how much they shoveled the way of their bank executive friends who rightfully based on their work performance should be in debtor's prison instead of living with their servants in a penthouse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10th May 2009, rachelnewman wrote:As a teacher I don't hink MPs are badly paid! After all you don't need any qualifications to be an MP, once an MP you have no personal targets to fullfill or be put on capapbility if you do not perform well. You don't have to be there every day at a certain times etc. You don't even have to think as if you want to climb up and become a Minister in a Cabinet all you need is to always do and say as the Leader tells them to do or party advisers tell you to say or reply to questions. As an MP you can't interfere in Local Government rules issues. So what is the point of having so many on the Gravy train! Basically labour years ago kept saying we will get rid of sleeze. Well congratulations labour you have got rid of sleeze and have replaced it with absolute corruption and contempt for honesty, hard work and decency.
As an ex Labour Party supporter I a now ashamed that I worked so hard to get them elected. I also I regret working so hard fo no expenses in my spare time (canvassing, delivering leaflets etc)to get my Local MP elected who had done nothing to improve the Borough I live in no Britain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th May 2009, romejellybean wrote:Anyone who expresses the wish to become an MP should automatically be banned from ever becoming one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th May 2009, KristinaBrooker wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 13th May 2009, The Christian Hippy wrote:MPs who have been found out to have made fraudulent claims should be prosecuted, why pay money back if thy were in the right. The police should be called in to investigate suspicious claims.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 14th May 2009, Orville Eastland wrote:Why should they serve for no money? Simple. They don't care about it. I'm a member of a volunteer emergency response organization. I have to pay for my expenses. I do get some benefits- some of which I can't use, since I don't fly a plane and I don't drive. But, the main reason I do it is to help contribute to my community and help others.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 15th May 2009, MistyPatches wrote:The only honourable man to enter Parliament was Guy Falks.
I also think the Zacchaeus principal should be applied !
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)