Cameron Watt: Let’s pay MPs £100K – for working full-time

It’s probably safe to assume that the general public holds prison officers in higher esteem than Members of Parliament. Although the warders’ illegal strike this week cannot be condoned, I have some sympathy for their relatively modest pay demand. However I want to use this column to make what many will consider a much harder case in arguing for a large salary increase for MPs. In my view, their basic pay should be raised from just over £60,000 to around £100,000, and MPs with additional paid responsibilities should receive proportionate increases.

Last December, it was reported that both Labour and Conservative MPs had written to the Senior Salaries Review Board arguing such a rise was needed to bring them into line with senior civil servants and GPs. It is certainly true that in recent years, MPs’ pay has fallen well behind senior public sector workers, especially in health and education. Average pay for general practitioners in England is now £102,000. The MPs’ aspiration to be paid at such at level is entirely reasonable.

MPs are subject to a high degree of public derision and opprobrium, but in their jobs they undoubtedly carry a work-load and weight of responsibility which at least equals that of a family doctor. It must be galling for MPs that thousands of civil servants in Whitehall are paid more than they are, not to mention vast numbers with non-jobs in quangos and local government.

Large swathes of middle-class professionals in normal jobs would be unable to sustain their families’ standard of living on 60K. MPs’ salaries should be able to provide a good though not lavish standard of living and also reflect the additional strain placed on family life by the nature of the job. A spouse or partner spending much of the year on their own will typically have to shoulder extra parenting duties, limiting their scope to continue working full-time themselves.

Some may argue that MPs’ relatively low basic salaries are balanced by generous pensions and expenses. Certainly MPs’ gold-plated pensions offer some compensation, but their generosity reflects the precarious and often short-term nature of parliamentary careers.

However this large increase in salaries should not be granted without the taxpayer receiving full value for their MPs. If you work full-time, does your job allow you to take significant time off during working hours to do other paid employment? No, neither does mine. Yet one of the main consequences of MPs’ relatively poor pay is the increasing trend for them to seek additional paid work to make ends meet.

The quid pro quo for paying MPs realistic salaries should be an insistence that they work full-time and undertake no other paid work. Far too many important debates are sparsely attended. When it is sitting, Parliament is now not only deserted on Fridays; a large chunk of MPs are also nowhere to be seen on Thursdays. The cumulative effect of this moonlighting is compromising the quality of our democracy. No matter how able an MP is, he or she obviously cannot fully bring their talents to bear for the good of the country if they are working part-time.

MPs regularly remind us how demanding their job is. Having observed many at close hand, I agree that properly done, the job of MP is more than full-time. The privilege of representing 70,000 people in the Commons, along with making and scrutinising legislation, deserves to be more than just another element of a portfolio career. Outside interests can help MPs bring new skills and interests to parliament, but these can be equally well acquired through cultivating a ‘hinterland’ or volunteering as through paid work. And if financial considerations were not at stake, a better balance is likely to be achieved between MPs’ parliamentary lives and their outside activities. 

After initial resistance, I believe that most MPs undertaking extra paid work would accept this new regime, especially if it were accompanied by the significant increase in salaries suggested. Some in very high earning professions might choose not to pursue or continue in a parliamentary career as a result, but I reckon that would be a price worth paying to secure the undivided time and commitment of MPs. The salary increases would cost several tens of millions of pounds to implement. I am sure the Taxpayers’ Alliance could advise on which one or two quangos could be wound-up to pay for it.

Comments

[malcolm]

No, no a thousand times no. The gulf between the electorate and our political elite has never been wider. Contempt for politicians and the political process has never been higher.
Do you really think that by giving MPs a massive rise at the same time as urging pay restraint on other public sector employees the outcome would be anything other than politically disastrous.
I simply do not believe that we would attract better people by paying more money. There is a huge surfeit of people wishing to be MPs if we are to follow market principles we should be paying them (much) less.

[Teck]

Tony Makara, Lindsay Jenkins and Donal Blaney all made valid comments, but it cannot be denied that MPs come from candidates selected in the main by local associations (in our Party at least, excluding those parachuted in) whose selection panelists' preferences seem to centre on a candidate's length of immersion in politics and localism, with real-life experience and perspicacious intellect given less importance.

Now we even have positive discrimination based on sex and fanfare for diversity's sake.

So, how do excellent guys with critically important experience and logical-thinking prowess living and working in no-hoper districts get to become MPs and contribute to politics?

[Erasmus]

Cameron -- a great article, you are absolutely right. Given the bitter and twisted types who spend so much time hanging around comment sections, I'm not surprised that there are so many posts saying MPs are rubbish. Actually, most of them are incredibly committed -- and do much more work than most people give them credit for. However, I do like the suggestion of a basic salary that can be topped up by taking on additional parliamentary responsibilities -- however this means creating a proper system of scrutiny committees etc not the largely toothless arrangements we have now.

[Richard]

If MPs are to be paid as 'middle-class professionals', will they also be taxed as such?

If my employer paid me a second home allowance, it would be taxed as a benefit in kind, as would use of the company jet to take my family on holiday. If I claimed for the purchase of iPods as a business expense, I'd be prosecuted.

[Matt Wardman]

Sorry Cameron.

This is fantastical guff.

A "basic" salary of £60,000 places MPs in (I think) the top 5-10% nationally, even without all the perks and backhanders. That is more than enough.

The correct solution is to reduce GP income to the same as their peers in other countries (US Doctors are jealous, for example), rather than bloat other groups incomes to the same extent.

[Steve Folan]

MPs are not at the level of GPs but should be pitched at lower managerial civil servants. Tie any rise to the wages of nurses to encourage MPs to focus on people who who do deliver results and make a difference.

They already have their work on the side and if they cannot live on £60,000 grand a year then let them stand aside and let someone else do the job. That way we will get fewer 'lifers' in the commons and a refresh that relects the population.

[GT]

Why not pay a fixed amount to cover all expenses and an MP's salary. No additional amounts. So staff, postage, travel and living and pension contributions must be paid from it. Each MP could determine the mix they want.
If the number of MPs dropped to say 400, then a payment of £200K- £250K would be appropriate and the total bill to the tax-payer would fall.
There would be immediate savings in the fees office administration costs as well.

There should also be far fewer ministers.