Who said what to whom?
The Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that the body responsible for setting MPs pay (IPSA) should think again about its recommendation to increase salaries by £7,604 to £74,000 per year or . . . he said: “I don't think anyone will want to rule anything out.”
What does it mean? IPSA was given the power to set MPs pay in May 2011. It decides, not MPs themselves as used to be the case. The implication of the Prime Minister’s commitment is that, if they don’t go back on their proposals—and they haven’t, they published the final version the day after the Prime Minister’s comments—then he will remove their pay-setting power or, stopping short of that, pass legislation to overrule them on this point.
What could go wrong? While the other two major party leaders agree with the Prime Minister, his commitment on this touchy subject seemed to create a brief period of quiet among his backbenchers during the usually raucous Prime Minister’s Questions. Peter Lilley, a senior Minister in former Conservative governments, said expressly that, if the Prime Minister is concerned about the cost of politics, then he should reduce the number of MPs (a Conservative policy from the last manifesto).
The issue for backbenchers (Ministers get higher salaries anyway) is that their pensions are under pressure for being overly generous, IPSA is looking for an annual public statement from them of how they spend their office expenses and it is also planning to limit "resettlement allowances" (money paid to MPs when they stop being MPs, to compensate them for being resettled into the community from the Westminster village I suppose).
If the Prime Minister has to bring in legislation to undo the IPSA proposal, then there will probably be talk of a rebellion.
When will we know? IPSA has published its final proposal. Given what the Prime Minister has said in public, there will unsurprisingly be a lot of discussion happening in private. That said IPSA doesn’t propose to increase MPs pay until after the 2015 election on the basis that MPs have already effectively signed up to the current pay deal until then. So this could be left to settle, except Ed Miliband has already written to the PM declaring that he wants a decision to be made on future salaries now, not leave the issue blowing in the wind.
If the Prime Minister does decide to bring in new legislation to change the role of IPSA, abolish it or just overrule it on this issue, that will take time; and it will be complicated. IPSA was created after the MPs’ expenses scandal. Have MPs won significantly more public trust since that time? No, which means that some form of independent regulation and oversight of their pay and perks will still be needed.
Commitment rating: 1 The Prime Minister was bold to say that nothing can be ruled out. In fact returning pay-setting power to MPs probably can be ruled out. And equally he may not want to antagonise his backbenchers, and create lots of news opportunities for them, by springing on the Commons a piece of legislation that limits sharply their pay while squeezing down on their perks. The Prime Minister’s options are much more limited than he suggested.
What does it mean? IPSA was given the power to set MPs pay in May 2011. It decides, not MPs themselves as used to be the case. The implication of the Prime Minister’s commitment is that, if they don’t go back on their proposals—and they haven’t, they published the final version the day after the Prime Minister’s comments—then he will remove their pay-setting power or, stopping short of that, pass legislation to overrule them on this point.
What could go wrong? While the other two major party leaders agree with the Prime Minister, his commitment on this touchy subject seemed to create a brief period of quiet among his backbenchers during the usually raucous Prime Minister’s Questions. Peter Lilley, a senior Minister in former Conservative governments, said expressly that, if the Prime Minister is concerned about the cost of politics, then he should reduce the number of MPs (a Conservative policy from the last manifesto).
The issue for backbenchers (Ministers get higher salaries anyway) is that their pensions are under pressure for being overly generous, IPSA is looking for an annual public statement from them of how they spend their office expenses and it is also planning to limit "resettlement allowances" (money paid to MPs when they stop being MPs, to compensate them for being resettled into the community from the Westminster village I suppose).
If the Prime Minister has to bring in legislation to undo the IPSA proposal, then there will probably be talk of a rebellion.
When will we know? IPSA has published its final proposal. Given what the Prime Minister has said in public, there will unsurprisingly be a lot of discussion happening in private. That said IPSA doesn’t propose to increase MPs pay until after the 2015 election on the basis that MPs have already effectively signed up to the current pay deal until then. So this could be left to settle, except Ed Miliband has already written to the PM declaring that he wants a decision to be made on future salaries now, not leave the issue blowing in the wind.
If the Prime Minister does decide to bring in new legislation to change the role of IPSA, abolish it or just overrule it on this issue, that will take time; and it will be complicated. IPSA was created after the MPs’ expenses scandal. Have MPs won significantly more public trust since that time? No, which means that some form of independent regulation and oversight of their pay and perks will still be needed.
Commitment rating: 1 The Prime Minister was bold to say that nothing can be ruled out. In fact returning pay-setting power to MPs probably can be ruled out. And equally he may not want to antagonise his backbenchers, and create lots of news opportunities for them, by springing on the Commons a piece of legislation that limits sharply their pay while squeezing down on their perks. The Prime Minister’s options are much more limited than he suggested.
