Latest news with #IndependentParliamentaryStandardsAuthority
The Guardian
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
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.
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MP watchdog asked to review expenses after Midland MP's 'pet rent' claim
Ministers are set to request a Parliamentary watchdog to scrutinise certain expenses claims following revelations that a Labour MP claimed £900 in "pet rent" from the taxpayer. Security minister Dan Jarvis has defended his colleague Taiwo Owatemi, Government whip and MP for Coventry North West, stating she adhered to the rules when she filed the expenses claim in August last year. However, Jarvis acknowledged that the "rules can't be right" and confirmed the government's intention to prompt the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) to review the regulations. READ MORE: Exact date Brits should turn heating off to save money on energy bills The claim by Owatemi arose after her landlord at her second residence in London imposed an additional fee to accommodate the MP's dog, as reported by The Times newspaper. The parliamentary authorities processed and paid the claim, which did not contravene the existing rules on MPs' expenses, as reported by City AM. Discussing the matter with LBC, Jarvis remarked: "I wouldn't do that, haven't done that. Therefore, I think it can't be right that the rules allow any Member of Parliament to do that. "That is why the government will be making representations to Ipsa, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, to ask them to look very carefully at the detail of this particular rule. "It's important to say that the MP in question, she hasn't done anything wrong in that she's followed the rules as they are at the moment, but we don't think that those rules can be right and that's why the government will flag it with Ipsa." Jarvis was questioned by LBC about the optics of a Labour MP claiming expenses for pet rent while the government is cutting benefits. He responded: "Yeah. That is why the government will raising concerns about this particular rule and we will pick that up with Ipsa." Owatemi often shares posts about her cockapoo, Bella, on social media. She also supports Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other animal-related charities. MPs who have constituencies outside of London are allowed to claim back rent for accommodation in the capital. Ipsa informed The Times that it had agreed to fund the pet rent surcharge for Owatemi, but "gave incorrect advice as to how it should be described". "We have apologised directly to the MP and are sorry for any confusion," added the parliamentary watchdog.
Telegraph
24-03-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
MPs' £2.5k pay rise faces backlash
The parliamentary watchdog is facing a backlash after handing MPs a pay rise of more than £2,500. On Monday, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) confirmed MPs' pay will go up by £2,558, a rise of 2.8 per cent. The increase is just below the 3 per cent inflation rate and means pay will reach £93,904, up from £91,346. MPs received £79,468 a year at the start of the previous parliament in 2019. IPSA has defended the decision, saying it recognised the 'vital' role of MPs, but the raise prompted anger amid rising living costs and billions of pounds of public spending cuts. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, told The Telegraph: 'I did respond to the IPSA to make the case that there should be no rise and that MP pay should be cut. 'I am really not comfortable with MPs getting more when so many people are struggling. Of course it will go to charitable organisations who are struggling too.' 'MPs' pay should be tied to GDP' The backlash extended across the political spectrum. John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers will be frustrated that while their own income is squeezed, MPs will face no such hardship. 'Despite overseeing a soaring tax burden and crumbling public services, Britain's politicians are once again being rewarded despite their litany of failures. ' MPs' pay should be tied to GDP per capita, so that their earnings rise only when the country prospers.' The Parliamentary Standards Act means IPSA must also conduct a wider review of MPs' salaries in the first year of a new parliament, meaning it had to act by early July at the latest. When the pay increase was first announced towards the start of February, Richard Lloyd, the chairman of IPSA, insisted it struck the right balance. Mr Lloyd said at the time: 'IPSA has been responsible for deciding MPs' pay since 2011. Since then, our aim has been to make fair decisions on pay, both for MPs and the public. 'Our pay proposal for 2025-26 reflects the experience of the wider working public sector population, and recognises both the vital role of MPs and the current economic climate.' IPSA is independent of the Government and takes into account a range of factors when it decides on how much to increase MPs' pay by. These include national statistics on pay and reward in the public sector as well as the wider economic backdrop. The watchdog admits on its website that MPs' pay is a 'contentious topic' but said it did enough research to decide on an 'appropriate' salary. 'MPs' salaries and pensions are the only remuneration MPs personally receive from us,' it said. 'Business costs – such as staffing and office costs – are provided to enable MPs to work from two locations and fully fulfil their parliamentary duties to support and represent their constituents.' Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Conservative MP for West Worthing, came under fire a few years ago when he suggested MPs should be paid the same as GPs – around £100,000.
The Independent
24-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
MPs' pay to rise by 2.8% to £93,904 in April
MPs' salaries will rise by 2.8% to £93,904 in the next financial year, Parliament's expenses watchdog has confirmed. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) said the decision was in line with wider Government pay recommendations for public sector workers. Under the Parliamentary Standards Act, IPSA is required to review MPs' salaries within the first year of a new parliament, by early July. The watchdog said it would hold a further consultation on the determination of MPs' pay for the rest of the current parliamentary term in the coming months.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MPs deserve more than £94k a year
Our 650 Members of Parliament are on course for a pay rise in April, to just under £94,000 a year. Gosh – nearly six figures for waving some papers and asking an 'urgent question' about progress on a new A-road in Little Humpington. That's not to mention subsidised housing costs, a great pension and the cheap grub and booze available in the many bars of the House of Commons. I wish I could be angry, but actually, MPs are being chronically underpaid. The 2.8pc bump, recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), kicks in at the same time as Rachel Reeves's National Insurance raid on employers, which will leave many in the private sector with little or no pay rise at all. And yet MPs remain the poor relations compared to their counterparts in foreign parliaments and the kinds of jobs they could walk into in the private sector. Many, including Labour MPs, scoffed when Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Conservative MP for West Worthing, said in an interview a few years ago that MPs should be paid the same as GPs, suggesting around £110,000 a year would be more appropriate. His unguarded comment that the financial situation was 'desperately difficult' and 'grim' for young politicians was seized upon by the opposition as an example of out-of-touch Tories. Last year, there was much hollow laughter when George Freeman, the MP for Mid Norfolk, said he had stood down as a minister because his mortgage had risen 'from £800 per month to £2,000 per month, which I simply couldn't afford to pay on a ministerial salary'. Many scoffed at the idea a salary of £118,300 wasn't enough, but Mr Freeman has a pre-politics background in science and technology and could earn far more in a second job than the extra money ministers are paid. He revealed he had gone through a 'very painful' divorce and had two elderly parents and three children – none of which came cheap. Instead of laughing at MPs who dare to say their salaries are a bit stingy, we should make drastic changes to their pay and benefits. It was following The Telegraph's legendary investigation into the expenses scandal that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was created. Prior to that, MPs had set their own pay and topped it up by abusing the less-than-vigorous expenses system to claim back the cost of pretty much anything, including the infamous £1,645 duck house at Sir Peter Viggers' home (which was claimed for but rejected). Now we should go further and raise MPs' salaries to bring them to a comparable level with other countries. For instance, in 2018, Australian politicians were paid around £100,000 a year while their British counterparts were paid just £77,300. Today, MPs should already be earning well in excess of £100,000. That symbolic barrier would not only convince the most capable to consider public service over the City of London (six figures is considered positively plebeian these days in the Square Mile), but would also force MPs to confront the absurdities of the tax system in which thousands pay 62p in the pound over that level. In return for providing a competitive salary, there should be an outright ban on second jobs. With proper pay, there can be no reason our MPs cannot devote themselves fully to serving their constituents, developing effective policy and holding the government to account. MPs, particularly those who claim to be serious about cutting the size of the state – I'm looking at you Nigel and Kemi – should also fall on their swords and campaign to cut back the generosity of their pension scheme. It is now a relic of a bygone age. IPSA is reviewing the mechanism it is using to set MPs' pay going forward. It is time to pay our MPs a full-time wage for a full-time job. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
