This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/mp-pay-rise-go-ahead-cameron-public-sector-unions-opposition

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
MPs should get 10% pay rise, says regulator MPs should get 10% pay rise, says regulator
(about 5 hours later)
The body set up to regulate MPs’ pay has recommended a 10% increase in their salaries to £74,000 despite calls for restraint from David Cameron and public sector unions. The body that regulates MPs’ pay is set to implement a 10% increase in their salaries to £74,000 as David Cameron stepped away from action to prevent the controversial change.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said there appeared to be no material reason to change a previous proposal for a raise from the current £67,000. It is likely to push ahead with the pay rise despite a public sector pay freeze and deep cuts to government departments. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said there appeared to be no material reason to change a previous proposal for a raise from the current £67,000.
Officials said it was expected the pay rise would go ahead at the end of this month despite a public sector pay freeze and deep cuts to government departments. Cameron and other ministers would benefit from the increase to MPs’ pay, it was confirmed.
The announcement has prompted a furious reaction from public sector unions and taxpayers’ organisations.
Related: Proposed pay rise for MPs unacceptable, says David CameronRelated: Proposed pay rise for MPs unacceptable, says David Cameron
Reacting to the announcement, Cameron’s official spokeswoman said the prime minister did not have the power to stop the pay rise and would not voluntarily give it up himself if it happens. Downing Street said Cameron did not have the power to stop the pay rise and would not voluntarily give it up himself if it went ahead.
“The prime minister has been absolutely clear that he does not agree with the proposed increases but ultimately it is up to Ipsa – the independent body – to make [its] determination,” she said. “The prime minister has been absolutely clear that he does not agree with the proposed increases but ultimately it is up to Ipsa – the independent body – to make [its] determination,” the prime minister’s spokeswoman said.
She also suggested Downing Street would not be putting forward any new arguments to the consultation. Asked whether Cameron would accept the pay rise personally, she said: “The factual situation is that if Ipsa decides to press ahead, the pay increases automatically. What the prime minister is focused on is … the areas that he controls.” Before the election, Cameron appeared to threaten to disband Ipsa if it went ahead with the recommended pay rise.
Questioned about what Cameron would say to those who thought it was a slap in the face to public sector workers whose pay has been frozen, she said theprime minister would be absolutely clear that he does not agree with this. In December 2013, he told the Commons: “Ipsa do need to think again and, unless they do so, I don’t think anyone will want to rule anything out.”
Downing Street’s position appears to have been watered down since before the election, when Cameron appeared to threaten to disband Ipsa if it went ahead with the pay rise. Downing Street confirmed that, unlike in the last parliament, Cameron would benefit from the increase. He would receive a 5% pay rise, with his total package increasing from £142,500 to £149,440.
In December 2013, he told the Commons: “Ipsa do need to think again, and unless they do so, I don’t think anyone will want to rule anything out.” It would be grossly hypocritical for any MP who voted for … pay cuts for public sector workers to accept a 10% increase
It would be grossly hypocritical for any MP who voted for … paycuts for public sector workers to accept a 10% increase Public sector unions called for parity in the treatment of their members and MPs.
The salary increase was first announced in 2013 to address complaints that pay has dropped behind the rest of the public sector. At the time, the prime minister said it was “simply unacceptable” while the rest of the public sector was restricted to 1%. Mark Serwotka, the head of the PCS union, which represents many civil servants, said: “It would be grossly hypocritical for any MP who voted for years of pay cuts for public sector workers to accept a 10% increase for themselves.”
However, blocking the rise for rank-and-file MPs would require a change in the law, and with a slim majority it is far from clear whether Cameron could carry a vote in the Commons. Rob O’Neill, assistant general secretary of the FDA, whose members include the most senior civil servants in Whitehall, said the government should now offer similar pay rises to civil servants.
The consultation document issued by Ipsa claims that due to cuts in pensions and expenses – such as a ban on claiming for evening meals – the overall package of changes will not cost taxpayers “a penny more”. “The FDA agrees that recommendations of independent review bodies should be followed and also urges that Ipsa’s independent, evidence-led approach to setting pay should be extended throughout the civil service,” he said.
The proposed salary increase was first announced in 2013 to address complaints that pay has dropped behind the rest of the public sector. At the time, the prime minister said such a rise was “simply unacceptable” while the rest of the public sector was restricted to 1%.
However, blocking the rise for rank-and-file MPs would require a change in the law and, with a slim majority, it is far from clear whether Cameron could carry a vote in the Commons.
The consultation document issued by Ipsa claims that, due to cuts in pensions and expenses such as a ban on claiming for evening meals, the overall package of changes would not cost taxpayers “a penny more”.
The document says: “We remain of the view that it is right to increase MPs’ pay to £74,000 for all the reasons we set out in December 2013 and which we summarise above.The document says: “We remain of the view that it is right to increase MPs’ pay to £74,000 for all the reasons we set out in December 2013 and which we summarise above.
“Subject to any new and compelling evidence arising from this review, we therefore intend to implement the determination as currently drafted, with a one-off adjustment in MPs’ pay to £74,000 and subsequently linking it to changes in average UK earnings for the remainder of this parliament.”“Subject to any new and compelling evidence arising from this review, we therefore intend to implement the determination as currently drafted, with a one-off adjustment in MPs’ pay to £74,000 and subsequently linking it to changes in average UK earnings for the remainder of this parliament.”
The watchdog argues that MPs’ pay has fallen to 78% of that of “equivalents in the public sector”. It compares their role to the top tier of the civil service, chief superintendents in the police and colonels in the armed forces.The watchdog argues that MPs’ pay has fallen to 78% of that of “equivalents in the public sector”. It compares their role to the top tier of the civil service, chief superintendents in the police and colonels in the armed forces.
Related: MPs' pay rise: the proposal explainedRelated: MPs' pay rise: the proposal explained
Ispa called for any further evidence against the decision to be submitted over the next few weeks otherwise the increase will be confirmed at the end of this month, with the rise backdated to 8 May. Ipsa called for any further evidence against the decision to be submitted over the next few weeks otherwise the increase would be confirmed at the end of this month, with the rise backdated to 8 May.
Public sector unions called for parity in the treatment of MPs and their members. Rob O’Neill, assistant general secretary of the FDA – whose members include the most senior civil servants in Whitehall – said: “The FDA agrees that recommendations of independent review bodies should be followed and also urges that Ipsa’s independent, evidence-led approach to setting pay should be extended throughout the civil service.” Ipsa was set up in 2009 in the wake of the expenses scandal. It took over the function of setting MPs’ pay from parliament after MPs were accused of being selfish, or were too frightened of being accused of selfishness, to vote on a possible pay rise.
Reacting to Ipsa’s announcement, Mark Serwotka, the head of the PCS union, which represents many rank and file civil servants, said: “It would be grossly hypocritical for any MP who voted for years of paycuts for public sector workers to accept a 10% increase for themselves.” In Westminster, some MPs privately say that the issue of pay and expenses remains so toxic they cannot speak out about it.
A Labour spokesman said: “It would feel wrong if Ipsa proposed an increase in MPs’ take-home pay at a time when so many people are struggling.” One told the Guardian that it would be “morally and constitutionally wrong” for MPs to step in and interfere with the decision of an independent body.
But one long-term critic of MPs’ expenses has called for the pay rise to be stopped. John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, said: “This decision to award a massive pay increase shows that Westminster still doesn’t get it, your first decision as a newly elected or re-elected MP should not be to award yourself a pay rise.”
A spokesman for Labour said the increase “does not feel right”.