Members of public to be selected for ‘honest conversation' about MPs' pay
The thorny topic of MPs' pay and funding will be debated by randomly selected members of the public at a new citizens' forum, as parliament's watchdog said it was launching an 'open and honest conversation' about what democracy is worth.
Invitations are being sent out by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which this year set the basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2025 at £93,904. It is also responsible for approving MPs' expenses, which it prefers to call business costs.
The watchdog, set up in the aftermath of the MPs' expenses scandal in 2010, will send out 10,000 letters via a lottery system in the coming weeks, and about 25 people will ultimately be chosen to sit in the forum and express their views.
The sessions, which will involve a modest payment for participants of about £250, will involve two full days and two evenings of online discussion about pay and funding for MPs.
There is limited public polling on the subject of how MPs are paid and their business costs funded, but one opinion survey from 2021 conducted by Find Out Now found that 3% of people thought MP pay was too low and should be increased whereas 62% thought it was too high and should be reduced. About 8% said they did not know and 27% thought it was set at about the right amount.
In its 2024 report on MP pay, Ipsa said there was 'a lack of understanding about how decisions on MPs' pay are made' and there were myths about MPs having their main private homes funded by taxpayers.
The watchdog is aiming to have a debate about the various functions of an MP, the costs of running their operations and what is fair compensation and support for their roles.
Richard Lloyd, the Ipsa chair, said: 'We want to support a diverse and representative parliament, where being an MP is not reserved for those wealthy enough to fund it themselves.
'This is why we believe MPs need to be paid fairly and to be given the appropriate level of funding to be able to run their office. We know people care about our democracy, but we also know trust in democracy remains low, while levels of abuse and intimidation towards candidates and MPs are rising.
'We want to have an honest and open conversation on what democracy is worth to you and get your views on how we should fund MPs.
'If you are one of the people who receives a letter inviting you to take part in the forum, we hope you'll consider this a great opportunity to share your views.'
The project will be run in partnership with the New Citizen Project and the Sortition Foundation, with sessions held in September.
Alongside this, Ipsa is also planning to engage with the public online and through interested groups to undertake what it is calling its 'most ambitious listening exercise since it was created in 2010'. It will also seek input from academics, journalists and other experts under the theme 'What's Democracy Worth'.
The outcome of the citizens' forum and Ipsa's wider listening exercise will be presented to its board, which will consider them as part of its decision on how MPs' pay and funding should be set from 2026 onwards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
MPs demand ban on fundraisers' ‘misleading' tips
MPs are calling for a fresh crackdown on 'concealed tips' on charity fundraising platforms. Fundraising websites have been accused of steering donors into giving 'voluntary tips' of as much as 19pc – fees which are not shared with charities. One of those fundraisers, JustGiving, made £24m profit in 2023, up from an approximately £3.8m-a-year profit before it introduced the tip model, according to its company accounts. The platform said it has raised more than £7bn for charities and good causes since it was founded in 2000. Labour MP Jo Platt, member of the culture, media and sport committee, said: 'Fundraising platforms play an important role in facilitating giving. But concealed tipping options and hidden charges are unnecessarily diverting money away from charities and misleading donors.' She joins several other MPs including Anneliese Dodds, Alex Sobel and Saqib Bhatti who have lodged Parliamentary Questions this year asking when the Government will address the issue. When donors use JustGiving, the online platform suggests a tip set to 19pc. The sliding scale, which allows the tip to be adjusted, cannot be set to zero. Instead, donors have to choose to input a custom amount, and set that to £0, to avoid making a 'voluntary tip'. It is possible to claim back the tip. The JustGiving website states that donors can contact its customer service team via email or an online form in order to ask for a refund. A survey of over 2,0000 people published this week by Strand Partners shows over three quarters of voters want the Government to address the issue. Two thirds said they wanted it to be easier to remove tip options when donating online. JustGiving deducts 1.9pc of donations, alongside a 30p payment processing fee. Charities using the platform can pay a monthly fee of either £15 or £39 plus VAT for an improved service, and the platform claims 5pc of Gift Aid refunds. After an automatic 5 per cent platform fee taken from donations was scrapped in 2019, the company's profits increased from around £3.8m a year to £19m. The company behind the platform, posted profits of £24m in 2022 and 2023. Other fundraising platforms make it easier not to add a tip to a donation. GoFundMe lets donors slide the scale to £0, rather than requiring a custom amount to be entered. A GoFundMe spokesman said: 'GoFundMe is the only major platform which processes Gift Aid for free and allows donors to move the voluntary contribution slider to zero per cent with one click. 'We encourage all other platforms to follow our lead and ensure donors can give safely without any nasty surprises.' A fundraising code of practice will be introduced from November 1 this year, overseen by the Fundraising Regulator, and will require platforms to be transparent about fees and 'tips', and to offer straightforward ways to remove the extra payments. A spokesman for JustGiving said: 'Following consultation with some of the UK's leading charities, in 2019 we moved to a voluntary contribution model, so that as much money as possible could go directly to charities and good causes. This is now standard practice across the industry. 'Today, anyone using our platform has the option to leave a tip on top of their donation to support the running of JustGiving, and this is not compulsory. 'When people do choose to add a tip, this goes towards investing in and maintaining the technology that helps our site continue to securely raise funds on a global scale 24/7.'
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judges rule against Palestinian human rights group's claim that the UK is illegally arming Israel
A Palestinian human rights group lost its legal challenge on Monday to the British government's decision to supply Israel with parts for F-35 fighter jets and other military equipment. Al-Haq alleged that the U.K. broke domestic and international law and was complicit in atrocities against Palestinians by allowing essential components for the warplanes to be supplied to Israel. The government said the ruling showed it had rigorous export rules and it would continue to review its licensing agreements, a spokesperson said. The government last year suspended about 30 of 350 existing export licenses for equipment deemed to be for use in the conflict in Gaza because of a 'clear risk' the items could be used to violate international humanitarian law. Equipment included parts for helicopters and drones. But an exemption was made for some licenses related to components of F-35 fighter jets, which are indirectly supplied to Israel through the global spare parts supply chain and have been linked to bombing the Gaza Strip. While Al-Haq argued the U.K. shouldn't continue to export parts through what they called a 'deliberate loophole' given the government's own assessment of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law, the government said the parts were distributed to a collaboration involving the U.S. and six other partners to produce the jets. Components manufactured in the U.K. are sent to assembly lines in the U.S., Italy and Japan that supply partners — including Israel — with jets and spare parts, the court said. Two High Court judges ruled that the issue was one of national security because the parts were considered vital to the defense collaboration and the U.K.'s security and international peace. They said it wasn't up to the courts to tell the government to withdraw from the group because of the possibility the parts would be supplied to Israel and used to violate international humanitarian law in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive, which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts," Justices Stephen Males and Karen Steyn wrote in a 72-page judgment. Al-Haq and the groups that supported it, including U.K.-based Global Legal Action Network, Amnesty International and Oxfam, described the ruling as a disappointing setback, but said they had already made significant gains in getting the government to suspend some arms exports to Israel and they vowed to continue pressing their case. 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centered the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start," said Shawan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq. 'We continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' Compared with major arms suppliers such as the U.S. and Germany, British firms sell a relatively small amount of weapons and components to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade nonprofit group estimates that the U.K. supplies about 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth combat aircraft, including its laser targeting system.
The Sun
42 minutes ago
- The Sun
Gloating migrants take selfies on packed dinghy headed for UK – as Labour slammed over ‘merry-go-round' deal with France
GLOATING migrants have been spotted snapping cheery selfies as they attempt to cross the Channel in a bid to enter the UK. The boat was seen setting out from Gravelines, France, today, June 30. 5 5 Pictures show one boat, laden to the brim with migrants, setting off from a beach in France as one of them snaps selfies. Images show the migrants decked out in bright orange lifejackets and holding floatation devices. One of the men on the dinghy, sitting near the front, can be seen snapping a selfie in celebration. He holds both hands in the air in joy as he and his mates set out across the Channel. Others on the boat can also be seen pumping their arms in the air as the dinghy sets off for Britain's shores. Some further back in the boat look to be waving for the celebratory snaps. PM Sir Keir Starmer has come under increasing pressure to turn the tide on a record year of small boats after promising to 'smash the gangs' in the election. It comes after Labour was slammed for signing up to a "migrant merry-go-round" with France. Ministers are expected to reach a 'one in, one-out' returns deal with the French in a bid to deter small boats. Undercover delivery driver investigation The deal was branded a "gimmick" by Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Phillip. Starmer has previously admitted that the small boats crisis was "deteriorating." Record numbers of migrants have crossed the channel under Labour's government. Many are now finding easy work and free accommodation once reaching the UK, incentivising others to follow. 5 5 5 A Sun investigation revealed how Channel migrants were picking up jobs as food delivery couriers earning up to £250 a week after arriving in the UK. The investigation showed how migrants across the country could work illegally from asylum hotels as fast-food delivery drivers within hours of arriving in Britain. Bosses of Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat were hauled in by the Home Office to discuss the issue. He purchased the login to the delivery app's service from a seller called Danyel. Small boat migrants get illegal £1k-a-week delivery rider jobs within HOURS of landing in UK By Thomas Godfrey CHANNEL migrants are working as fast-food delivery riders within hours of arriving in the UK while being housed and fed at taxpayer expense. They rake in nearly £1,000 a week operating from asylum accommodation, used as hubs for black-market work on apps like Deliveroo and Just Eat. Migrants in hotels are banned from working in any circumstances if they have been in Britain for less than 12 months. Even those here longer are not allowed to legally work as delivery drivers. But at hotels around the country, including in London, Bournemouth and Manchester — each one housing hundreds of asylum seekers — we snapped migrants in branded jackets for Deliveroo, JustEat and Uber Eats. Some rode £1,000 e-bikes while others used public-hire bicycles. Last night Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'This crucial Sun investigation reveals yet another appalling abuse of our immigration system. 'These delivery companies know exactly what they're doing. It's a disgrace and they need to be made to feel consequences.'
