Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MPs set to vote on own £25,000 pay increase

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 March 2008
MPS will be given the chance to vote themselves a pay increase of up to £25,000 in a bid to end the controversy over allowances for second homes, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
But the hike in salaries to more than £85,000 – well above the rises being offered to workers across Britain – has been lambasted as the wrong way to end a discredited system.

A committee headed by Speaker Michael Martin is proposing that in ret
urn for scrapping a controversial second homes allowance worth up to £22,110 a year, all MPs should be reimbursed with a hefty boost to their current salary of £60,277 a year.

"It'll be one of the options that's put to MPs in July," confirmed a source close to the committee.

The cross-party committee is looking at "radical" options for restructuring MPs' pay and allowances in response to a furore over expenses.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said that replacing a "discredited" allowance with a pay rise was not the solution.

"It would be rewarding MPs for their current abuse of the second homes allowance by giving them an equivalent pay rise. This is not on," said Elliott.

Liberal Democrat MP and right-to-know campaigner Norman Baker said: "It'd be totally wrong to scrap the second homes allowance. It's there to reimburse MPs for legitimate expenditure made in the course of their duty. To lump it all together and give MPs a big pay rise would benefit MPs close to London who have lower expenses while penalising MPs like my colleagues in Scotland who are more likely to have higher expenses."

He added: "It's a fix to try to get around the Freedom of Information Act."

After a lengthy Freedom of Information battle, a tribunal ruled last month that MPs must disclose exactly how they spend the £22,110 allowance, which reimburses MPs for the cost of running a second home.

The tribunal described the "laxity" of the "deeply unsatisfactory" existing rules. The House of Commons has yet to announce whether it will appeal against the decision.

A source said that given the "political sensitivity" surrounding MPs' pay, the committee would be prepared to drop the tax perk currently enjoyed on the homes allowance. The source insisted that the attraction of the scheme lay in the fact it would not cost taxpayers any more than at present.

The Speaker's committee will produce an "issues paper" at the end of the month, with a final report to be voted on by MPs in the House of Commons in July.



The full article contains 441 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 March 2008 9:38 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Jimmy the Pie,

09/03/2008 00:00:06
Wh0res and comic singers!
2

Tris,

09/03/2008 00:31:43


Now let me see if I get this right.....

They give up a second home allowance of just over £22,000, and in return for that generous gesture, we give them £25,000, regardless of whether they have a second house or not. Really good deal for London MPs.

Yep, sounds like MPs voting on their own pay and conditions again.

Ok you people, here's what to do. Set up an independent body of ordinary tax payers, you know, the people who pay you. Your bosses..... and let them decide what you're worth.

Nah, they won't do that. You can't buy quad bikes off the minimum wage can you?

I've never come across such a sickening set of useless self serving morons.
3

Hickory,

US 09/03/2008 02:18:09
That tickle in ye pocket was the hand of a politician. They do it to ya twice. They take ye money and then they pump ya.
4

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 08:13:20
So who do you vote for at the next election??
The Sleaze and corruption party in the red or the sleasze and corruption party in the blue??
or just for a change you can vote for the sleaze and corruption party in the middle.
I love democracy.
5

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/03/2008 08:26:09
Why don't they buy the number of flats necessary to house non London MP's. Accept the house price inflation or deflation as a gain or cost to the country.

As it stands, they are highlighting how corrupt they are. If I was an MP, I would charge 249.99 for the above, and not need a receipt.

Thta's Westminster though and we all vote for it - at least some of us.
6

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

09/03/2008 08:26:24
Does anyone know where Guy fawkes is?
7

donald,

glasgow 09/03/2008 08:29:09
And Labourites still claim to be socialists?
8

oder,

Scotland 09/03/2008 08:48:57
anyone know which way the vote will go?
9

Paddi,

09/03/2008 11:50:04
This £25k also then gets added onto their already goldplated pensions.

Also MSP's will then demand parity

What a bunch of thieving scumbags the lot of them
10

JG,

Fife 09/03/2008 12:01:59
And there are far too many of them. They all have so little to do that they have to come up with stupid ideas just to justify their existence. Everyone knows that the vast majority of the tosh they produce is unworkable but they change things anway, BECAUSE THEY CAN!
11

Griffe,

09/03/2008 12:59:30
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office – Aesop. Nothing changes.

12

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 09/03/2008 13:18:22
There's absolutely no reason why MPs' accommodation in Lond could not be purchased by the Government, with the assets held as national ones and not personal to the MPs concerned. They're not there for entertainment but business after all. That's sorted the £25K increase and takes care of MP's who actually live in London because they can commute obviously.

As far as administration goes, there's again very little need for their own enormous office expenses when these could be rationalised and run in an accountable way on a regional basis. They're expecting us to run our businesses in an efficient and modern way and yet this bunch of self-serving ingrates prefer the antiquated systems 'because they've always done it this way'. Sorry, but times up on this kind of largesse.
13

Guga II,

Rockall 09/03/2008 14:10:59
I agree with #6; where is Guy Fawkes when you need him.

They are a bunch of lying, thieving scumbags, and want to reward themselves for stopping one of their many schemes for ripping off the taxpayer.

Politics is, indeed, a low occupation, and eagerly practised by assorted pond life.
14

Evia,

09/03/2008 16:26:08
14 Guga II, Rockall

What an excellent post.
15

Douglas,

Bathgate 09/03/2008 16:49:33
#9 oder: I've just spoken to my MP and after trousering a consultancy fee he advised me, through a mouthful of foie gras and truffles that it was indeed, too close to call. :o)
16

preddo53,

leeds 09/03/2008 19:40:12
£25,000, that won't be much good to the MP for Batley, he claimed £388,000 last year, he'll be on the bread line
17

Tommy Atkins,

Indoors 09/03/2008 20:29:21
Very Rev Ian Paisley,
09/03/2008 08:26:24
Does anyone know where Guy fawkes is?
&
Guga II,
Rockall 09/03/2008 14:10:59
I agree with #6; where is Guy Fawkes when you need him.


Try the modern day equivelant:
http://www.order-order.com/
18

Reckless,

Gordon Brown shirt 09/03/2008 20:32:11
USA PATRIOT ACT
UK Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Hitler's Enabling Act 1933
19

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 09/03/2008 22:51:00
What is needed is a system of performance related pay increaces similar to the civil service pay awards scheme where the MPs contituents decide the performance grade each year.
Any grading below a 3 and the MP gets no pay rise at all. That would put more power where it belongs with the people. It would certainly motivate MPs to give their best for their constituents and force them away from the party whip.
But of course that would be too democratic for this banana republic to stomach.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.