“An allowance to enable men to come here, men who would render incalculable service to the state, and whom it is an incalculable loss to the state not to have here.” So said Lloyd George of payments to MPs in 1911, when as chancellor he brought in the member’s allowance to enable those without independent funds to become representatives. This was the move that finally opened up parliament from a stuffy closed shop of wealthy landowners to a more diverse, representative House of Commons.
Lloyd George made it clear that the allowance was not in any way to be considered a salary, payment for services or reimbursement of expenses. It was merely an allowance that recognised there were costs associated with being an MP that couldn’t be second guessed in individual circumstances. This was of huge benefit to less affluent and Labour MPs in particular, following the 1909 Osborne judgment against union funding.
In the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal six years ago it is all too easy to blur the line between government ministers, who seek to enforce their will on parliament, and backbench MPs, whose primary function is to hold to account the government without fear or favour, as the directly elected people’s voice. This is difficult to do if an MP is beholden to their leadership for a paid job.
The facts are pretty clear. Two-thirds of MPs take a pay cut to enter parliament. The package for MPs has been chipped away for the last 100 years largely driven by governments. Last week’s “pay rise” (as headlined by the expenses watchdog Ipsa) is in reality a cut to the overall package once again. Of our MPs, 91% are subsidising the work they do from their own pockets: 37% are contributing more than £2,000 a year and 10% £10,000 or more.
It is right that MPs’ pay and conditions are set independently of government. Yet Ipsa is doing the government’s bidding by pretending to increase payments when in reality they reduced the package while massively increasing the bureaucracy that costs the taxpayer a fortune but undermines the ability of a backbench MP to perform their duties.
The current level of pay is creating a parliament full of career politicians and the independently wealthy who benefit from trust funds, wealthy spouses, inherited homes and unearned income. It is no surprise that approximately a quarter of MPs are millionaires or from wealthy families.
While wealthier MPs may choose not to claim certain expenses, most MPs simply cannot afford to forego seeking repayment of the money they spend on being an MP – whether it’s on travel, accommodation, stationery or refreshments for constituents.
We have a system in which, unless MPs are independently wealthy, they are at the beck and call of party leaders who can entice them with offers of better-paid jobs on the front bench. I want a parliament of free thinkers who will act without fear or favour in holding the government to account. We should not have the lure of a frontbench salary cheque dictating how our elected representatives vote.
Given the anger this issue brings up, it is understandable that leadership contenders and party leaders feel they must pander to populist opinion by suggesting pay and conditions should be systematically eroded.
I believe we must move to a single annual taxable allowance, fixed for a full parliament – and in doing so abandon the antagonistic yearly uprating of salaries. This system would be completely transparent, reduce bureaucracy, save taxpayers’ money, free MPs to serve their constituents and not be open to any form of abuse.
A parliament full of MPs who are either independently wealthy or partisan political drones has hugely worrying implications for democracy. Paying elected MPs an appropriate amount is vital to the integrity of our democracy. Underpay MPs and you undermine parliamentary accountability.
