Aug 2009 07

New Research Note: The Case Against Boosting MPs’ Pay5

New investigation reveals true picture of generous Westminster salaries

First comprehensive comparison with European politicians

A new research note from the TaxPayers’ Alliance seeks to put paid to suggestions of a pay rise for Members of Parliament by revealing the true scale of their pay packets, and comparing them to Parliamentarians abroad. The report reveals:

·         An MP’s basic salary – £64,766 – places them in the top 3% of the British population by earnings. By comparison, last year the median gross annual earnings for UK adults in work was £25,100.

·         On a comparison of basic salaries, British MPs are the fourth best paid in Europe, with only their counterparts in Italy, Austria and Ireland earning more.

·         Once the heavy taxpayer subsidy for MPs’ pensions – worth £17,468 a year – is taken into account, an ordinary backbencher actually earns £82,252 a year.

·         131 MPs receive salary top-ups called ‘Additional Payments’ for their Parliamentary work over and above the basic backbencher’s salary. This total consists of the Prime Minister, 60 Government ministers and Under Secretaries, 26 select committee chairmen, 37 standing committee chairmen and 7 other MPs. In total, these MPs received £3.5 million in extra payments in 2007-08.

·         Those Commons jobs that receive Additional Payments are:

P

MPs pay

 

The full report can be found here.

 

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Some MPs have had the gall to try to hijack the recent crisis as an opportunity to push up their own pay even further. As these figures show, it is nonsense to suggest that MPs are poorly paid – they earn far more than the average in Britain, and more than the vast majority of European politicians. When you consider that all of them get a heavily subsidised pension, and that over 130 of them also have salary top-ups too, it is clear that there is no justification for any increase in MPs’ pay.”

 

For further quotes or to arrange broadcast interviews, please contact:

Mark Wallace, Campaign Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, on:

07795 084 113

 

Notes to Editors

 

1) The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) is Britain’s independent, grassroots campaign for lower taxes and better government. With over 30,000 supporters around the country the TPA led the campaign for full transparency and greater restraint in MPs’ expenses.

 

2) The full report is available online here.

 

3) Methodological Note: a) The full tally of ministerial jobs is accurate to 1 June 2009 – a small number may have changed in the 5 June reshuffle. Full data is yet to be published in the next set of Commons Factsheets or Senior Salaries Review Body documents. b) the additional payments made to some Standing Committee Chairmen are not made public, and have been calculated using the relevant sliding scale and the individuals’ length of service. c) all other data is drawn from official parliamentary publications and is referenced in the full report.

Related Posts

  • Brenda Laker

    Is the Taxpayers Alliance being given an opportunity to represent itself on the Inquiry into MPs Expenses? It appears that MPs are greedily representing their own interests, and many of us assume the Inquiry will be yet another white wash.

  • keith butler

    All of Parliament should bite the bullet and no rises should be payed until the country is back and in working order,this means that unemployment drops considerabley.
    We are now in unknow territory, especially backing paper with paper money without the accepted gold reserves which was the norm for many years.There are to many MP’s for the size of this country.These need to be looked at with a serious view to cut back the amount.As far as a raise in salary.we should be calling for time sheets on a monthly bases and published to the web for all to see.All said and done they are our paid representitives and there time should be justifiable.If we were not doing our job we would expect to be fired.The should be paid by results.

  • Mrs angry

    regarding Brenda Lakers question is the TPA being allowed to represent the taxpayer or again do we just sit back and allow them to stomp over us.

  • Brian Smith

    “Once the heavy taxpayer subsidy for MPs’ pensions – worth £17,468 a year – is taken into account, an ordinary backbencher actually earns £82,252 a year.”
    If a solicitor gave you a bill for £1,000 plus £250 for his pension you wouldn’t say he cost £1,000 would you? MPs are also self-employed people and any pension payments are part of the costs of employment born by the employer; us. Quoting £64,766 is not just sleight of hand; it is dishonest. And if that is the case – as it clearly is – why is the TPA, the Press and everybody else complicit in this lie?
    Additionally we should bear in mind the broad disparity (diversity?) of people coming into parliament. We had a 22 year old girl – the Gould child – straight out of university put forward recently in Thamesmead. Does anybody else know of a 22 year old with no experience of anything being worth that kind of money?
    Then we have all the old duffers serving their time out; how many people 70 and older can command that kind of income?
    And supposing you have the good fortune to represent a beautiful rural constituency in one of the nicest but also cheapest, parts of the UK? Should you get the same as someone living in and representing a seat in an inner London borough with all the additional costs that entails?
    The whole question of MPs pay is bedevilled with inconsistencies, special treatment and downright thievery all underpinned by an arrogant belief in their own value that contradicts common sense.
    Let’s have a campaign to reduce their numbers and sort out their salaries at the same time. I suggest we call the campaign “One in a 100,000″ which would give us about 460 MPs; more than enough.

  • Brian Smith

    I thought there might be some interest in this quotation from the recent report on the demise of Rover MG.
    “The men also chose to give themselves rewards out of all proportion to the incomes which they had previously commanded, which were also large when compared with remuneration paid in other companies and which were not obviously demanded by their qualifications and experience”.
    Has a familiar ring doesn’t it?