MPs’ salaries

Recently, I was invited to contribute a short piece for the launch of ‘The New Conservative’; now having obliged, I thought it might be interesting to open with something contentious. So, here we are: I firmly believe UK parliamentarians are significantly underpaid for their work.

As unpopular opinions go – and I have a fair few – this one has seen me jettisoned by more acquaintances than I care to recall. And indeed, I can easily see that MPs’ salaries (sitting squarely within what most would consider the luxurious end of things) ought not be the most pressing of economic issues. However, indulge me a while.

UK members of parliament did not actually start receiving remuneration for their work until the early 20th Century. Presumably, before this period, such an appointment was a) deemed enough of a privilege in its own right; and b) to be limited to those upstanding gentlemen as would naturally not require payment for such service. Following the establishment of the Labour Party at the turn of the century, a [perfectly understandable] drive was instigated, to make the Commons more reflective of society – and therefore, by definition, to be made more ‘composite’. I take no issue with this. So why, with starting salaries of more than £80k (before even contemplating the benefits package) would I lament the offering? It comes down to one word for me: focus.

Of late, there has been heavy criticism of BBC pay. Often, the quote runs along these lines: “…[insert executive or celebrity] in annual receipt of vastly more than the Prime Minister”. Personally, I take a different view. I would say we need to look at raising the PM’s yearly rate, and that of those around him. But for me, it would come with a hefty list of conditions. The first and most significant of these would be the culling of all second jobs performed by members, for the duration of their parliamentary tenure.

Cash for questions is not a new fad, and doubtless will never fully go away. But there are things that could be done to minimise its impact in the House. Ministers must of course listen to business, and be actively involved in a multitude of areas, reflecting both their personal constituencies, and individual briefs. But being directly bankrolled by a corporate with its own interests seems to me to fly in the face of the democratic process. How about we take steps to prevent this, and instead, encourage sitting members to take their first duty – to the wellbeing of the Nation – seriously, and fully?

There are a mere 650 seats in the UK parliament. I hope it can be seen, therefore, that a sizeable increase in salary for all could be an affordable solution to the myriad problems we have faced in recent years, concerning expenses, lobbying, second homes/flipping, and so on. Here are my proposals:

• That all members be paid an annual salary of £1,000,000
• That all members be barred from any other paid work while in office
• No expenses, office allowances, second homes to be provided [those with ministerial duties to be waived, for instance concerning international travel]
• That all members be expected to attend debates and constituency surgeries unless absence unavoidable
• That all members be able to demonstrate a degree of ‘real world’ experience prior to entering Parliament

My wage package is genuinely not as frivolous as it may appear. Granted, it could easily be a quarter of the figure suggested. But I stand by my central point: the duty of the servants of the State ought to be to create and scrutinise legislation that is in the best interests of the public. I do not wish individuals to be [legitimately or otherwise] occupied by taxi receipts, nor calculating if a family member could be drafted in to take calls; I would rather they forgo these trifles, secure in sufficient comfort to engage fully with those matters that affect us all: the decisions they make, or do not make, in our debating chamber. 

Isn’t it time we updated parliamentary pay, to better reflect the gravity of the position?