So what do Westminster MPs get paid?
£49,822 per annum basic. If they represent Inner London constituencies,
they get an extra £1,507 London allowance, while others get an extra
£13,628 for the expense of overnight stays in London.
Run that last bit past me again?
If you're in Inner London, you get an extra £1,507. If you're
not in Inner London, you get an extra £13,628. What's so difficult
about that?
I'll have to think about that one. They do deserve it, though.
It's a demanding, full-time job.
Not necessarily full-time. Many MP's take other jobs, such as
part-time directorships. It enables them to keep in touch with
the world outside Westminster.
Wouldn't they learn more just working in a pub at weekends?
No they wouldn't, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact
that part-time bar staff don't get paid £50k for putting their names
on companies' letterheads and attending a meeting once a month.
Would I suggest anything like that? Anyway, is it expensive
being an MP?
They're helped to a small extent by the £52,760 Office Costs Allowance
they get to run their offices in Parliament (and of course stationery,
phone calls and postage are all free). Some MP's get more:
David Blunkett, for example, gets £136,000 Office Costs Allowance
because of the extra difficulties caused by his blindness, and a handful
of other MPs also get more than the normal £53k.
All that travelling, though. Must cost them a bit.
Not as much as you might imagine. In fact nothing, come to think
of it. All MPs have Travel Warrants enabling them to travel
free by rail, sea or air between their homes, constituencies and London.
Their families too (spouse and kids) can make 15 return journeys to
London each year to see Mum or Dad. Office staff have similar
concessions. It all helps.
What about driving?
A mileage allowance of 53.7p per mile for the first 20,000 miles,
and a miserly 24.8p thereafter. If they claim more than 25,000
miles they have to produce evidence. Another regulation...
Hold it! Did you just say they could claim 25,000 miles without
any receipts or other evidence?
Yes, that's right. But surely you're not suggesting...
And exactly how many MPs claim 25,000 miles every year?
These figures are not available, but when Michael Heseltine's finances
were quite unnecessarily being investigated a few years ago, he seemed
to suggest at one point that 25,000 miles a year was a figure not
unknown to the Commons Accounts Department, even in the returns of
MPs who live within walking distance of Parliament. But strike
me dead with a Parking Ticket if I were ever even to think...
Yes, quite. How about pensions, then? None at all I
suppose.
The debate about the difficulties faced by MPs [see Joe Ashton
quotes: top of page ] should bring home to us all the sacrifices
politicians make for us. MPs pay 6% of their salaries into a
pension fund. It used to be 9%, but in 1991 they voted to keep
the benefits but reduce the contributions...
I wish I had a job like that! How did they manage that?
You're rather slow, aren't you? They're the House of Commons,
and in the national interest they can do as they see fit.
I remember that day well, Government and Opposition benches uniting
as never before in the fight against poverty...
Yeah, right. So what do they actually get?
Depending on length of service, an MP who leaves the House, whether
through choice or electoral defeat, gets a minimum Resettlement Grant
of 6 months' salary (£25k) and a maximum of 1 year's salary.
This is payable even if resettlement means nothing more than toddling
through to the House of Lords the next day. Also a pension
of 1/50 annual salary per year of service.
Resettlement Grant? Even if they've just been in the job
5 minutes?
Yes, but these are the very people that need our sympathy. Let's
go back to the debate in May:
He
was in for only three months because a general election was held
after that period and he lost his seat. He gave up a good
job. The local newspaper said that it was a cheat that he
should get 6 months' money for 3 months' work...we do not know
the traumas that [unseated MPs] may have experienced.
How heart-rending.
I suppose it's balanced by success, though?
Well, no. A number of new MPs in 1997 hadn't really expected
to win. Hansard again reveals their sad plight:
They
were simply [standing as candidates] for the experience...a woman
in that position would have had to tell her husband that they
would have to move to Midtownshire, for which she was the MP.
They would have to move 100 miles and buy a house...it is not
a happy experience.
So all this electioneering
guff about wanting to represent the people of Midtownshire...?
There's no need to be cynical. These men and women go into
politics to serve the nation unselfishly, to serve unstintingly,
and to serve without any regard to personal ambition (did I say
that right, Mr Campbell, Sir?)
Wouldn't all this be avoided by selecting candidates who actually
live in the constituency and who are more interested in the local
electors than they are in their own national careers?
What an eccentric idea. I'm sorry, I just can't seem to get
through to you people at all. This interview is terminated.
Goodnight.
|