Response to the IPSA Consultations on

MPs Pay and Expenses

Jonathan Bishop

Table of Contents
Answers to Consulation Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Question 1: Do you agree that MPs annual pay should be increased to 74,000 in the new Parliament as part of the new
remuneration package? ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
What are your reasons? ................................................................................................................................................... 2
But ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Question 2: Do you agree that we should index MPs pay to an economic indicator? Do you agree with the choice of
indicator? .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed pension arrangements for MPs in our preferred option? If so, please give
your reasons. If not, what do you think they should be; and why? ...................................................................................... 3
Question 4: Do you think there are merits in considering the introduction of a defined contribution scheme for MPs. If
so, what are your reasons? ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Question 5: Should MPs be able to maintain the current level of ancillary benefits by making higher pension
contributions, even if it requires all of them to do so? ......................................................................................................... 3
Question 6: Do you agree with our proposal to end the current arrangements for resettlement payments after the 2015
general election, replacing them with a payment of twice the statutory minimum for redundancy, to be paid only to
MPs who lose their seats? .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Question 7: Do you agree that the additional salary for Committee Chairs and members of the Panel of Chairs should be
uprated by 1% in 2015, pending a full review of these pay arrangements in the first year of the next Parliament? ........... 3
Question 8: Do you agree with the proposal that members of the Panel of Chairs should receive the full rate of pay after
a probationary period of one year? Or do you think the current four-tiered arrangements should continue until after the
review in 2015? ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Question 9: Do you agree that some elements of the current business costs and expenses regime should not be
reimbursed after May 2015, on the grounds that other professionals would expect to fund them themselves? ............... 3
Question 10: Do you agree that MPs should produce an annual report on their activities? Are there particular practical
issues which would need to be addressed in the development of these reports? ............................................................... 3
Question 11: Do you have any comments on the draft rules relating to payments for Specified Committee Chairs, as set
out in Annex B? ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Question 12: Do you agree that the Great Officers of State should be able to participate in the MPs Pension Scheme in
the same way as other MPs? ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Annex I MPs Expenses............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Housing Benefit for MPs ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Allowable Expenses for MPs ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Payments in Kind for Ministers ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Statutory Sick Pay for MPs .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Reundancy Payments for MPs .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Staffing Allowances for MPs ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Answers to Consulation Questions

The general theme of my position on MPs pay and pensions is that they should as far as possible
reflect those in the private sector, and in terms of expenses, should as far as possible reflect the
rules for people on benefits (e.g. Housing Benefit), self-assessment and the rules in relation to P11Ds
and statutory payments available to employees. This document supersedes my letter of 5 July 2013.

Question 1: Do you agree that MPs annual pay should be increased to 74,000 in the
new Parliament as part of the new remuneration package?
Yes, unfortunately. If one applied market forces to MPs then they would be paid nothing as the
demand for their position far exceeds the number of places available.

What are your reasons?

I believe in equal pay for equal work. The wages in the public sector, and for MPs, should be linked
to those in the private sector for the same work effort. This amount quoted sounds in fact less than
one would get for a job in the private sector which has an opt-out of the 48 hour working week.
Most MPs work over 100 hours a week and should be remunerated on the same basis that they
would in the private sector for working those hours.

But
In an ideal world MPs would only make decisions on issues we as the people are either too lazy to do
ourselves or those we are too selfish to compromise on and thus need someone who has the
legitimacy that comes with being elected by the public to resolve otherwise unresolved disputes.

It should therefore be the aim to encourage MPs to work in the private sector part time and
as MPs part time, so they have a perception of the real world rather than become distant
from the realities of the world those people they should be representing experience while
they are busy bootlicking the whip of their political party to get higher up the greasy pole.
There are so many MPs who are on the sick. The job should therefore as far as possible be
transformed to conform to the Working Time rules for private sector workers, as it is
discouraging women and people with disabilities from wanting to become MPs.

Question 2: Do you agree that we should index MPs pay to an economic indicator?
Do you agree with the choice of indicator?
Yes, but some difficulties might arise. Wage subsidies such as from tax credits or European aid might,
which are important to encourage risk taking through entrepreneurship in the case of the former,
and improve the social benefit of private firms in the case of the latter. This has the effect of making
private sector wages seem less if the wage subsidy or tax credits payments (which can give small
businesses the clout of firms that can afford a living wage) are not included in the calculations. On
that basis the calculations need to be based on effort, such as using the equations in the following
research I have conducted which can be used to make the pay of disabled people only able to work
16 hours equal to those who can work full time at 37.5 or up to 48:
http://www.crocels.com/information/neuroeconomics/

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed pension arrangements for MPs in our
preferred option? If so, please give your reasons. If not, what do you think they should
be; and why?
No, MPs should have the same pension as everyone else and pay the same NI as everyone else.

Question 4: Do you think there are merits in considering the introduction of a defined
contribution scheme for MPs. If so, what are your reasons?
No, MPs should have the same pension as everyone else and pay the same NI as everyone else.

Question 5: Should MPs be able to maintain the current level of ancillary benefits by
making higher pension contributions, even if it requires all of them to do so?
MPs should only be entitled to the same state pension as everyone else of the same age as them etc.
Any money in their current pension pot should go to the Exchequer.

Question 6: Do you agree with our proposal to end the current arrangements for
resettlement payments after the 2015 general election, replacing them with a
payment of twice the statutory minimum for redundancy, to be paid only to MPs who
lose their seats?
I agree with the essence of this to the point that MPs are treated the same as those in private sector.

Question 7: Do you agree that the additional salary for Committee Chairs and
members of the Panel of Chairs should be uprated by 1% in 2015, pending a full
review of these pay arrangements in the first year of the next Parliament?
I think it should as far as possible match the effort required for a similar role in the private sector on
the basis for equal pay for equal work.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposal that members of the Panel of Chairs
should receive the full rate of pay after a probationary period of one year? Or do you
think the current four-tiered arrangements should continue until after the review in
2015?
The rules should as far as possible in the private sector. This usually has a probation period with
increase pay as an incentive to stay following that.

Question 9: Do you agree that some elements of the current business costs and
expenses regime should not be reimbursed after May 2015, on the grounds that other
professionals would expect to fund them themselves?
If I had been an MP around the time of the expenses scandal, I would have paid tax on any items
that if paid to me as a company director would count as a payment in kind and go on my P11D. If
you had asked me to pay the expenses back I would have taken you to court and won! If one keeps
the tax man happy then no one can get one over on you! The rules for expenses should as far as
possible match those for self-assessment or otherwise what would apply to members of the public.

Question 10: Do you agree that MPs should produce an annual report on their
activities? Are there particular practical issues which would need to be addressed in
the development of these reports?
Not sure. Directors of Plcs have to. Many private sector employees have appraisals. The rules that
apply to MPs should as far as possible reflect those in similar roles in the private sector.

Question 11: Do you have any comments on the draft rules relating to payments for
Specified Committee Chairs, as set out in Annex B?
The rules should as far as possible reflect what one would be paid for taking on additional
management or similar responsibilities in a similar position in the private sector.

Question 12: Do you agree that the Great Officers of State should be able to
participate in the MPs Pension Scheme in the same way as other MPs?
No, they should have the same pension as everyone else and pay the same NI as everyone else.

Annex I MPs Expenses

As a general rule, the rules for them (MPs) should be as far as possible equal to the rules for us (the
people)

Housing Benefit for MPs

In terms of MPs second homes their allowances should be based on:

Rights and exclusions equivalent to Housing Benefit.

Number of rooms allowed for their children based on the bedroom tax rules.
They should not be allowed to claim council tax relief unless one of their homes is empty
or as may otherwise be the case in relation to us the people.

Allowable Expenses for MPs

In terms of the allowances they are allowed to claim back:

The same values of allowable expenditure that are allowed in terms of self-assessment.
They should have to forego the same amount on payments in kind as one of the people
would have to be taxed on something on their P11D.

Payments in Kind for Ministers

In terms of Government Ministers:

Their use of the ministerial car should be on the same basis as company cars.
They should have to pay the extra to upgrade a standard class rail ticket to first class for
them and their aide in the same way a disabled person and their companion claiming
from the Access 2 Work scheme would if they needed that facility.

Statutory Sick Pay for MPs

In terms of MPs who are off sick:

The rules relating to Statutory Sick Pay, Employment and Support Allowance, or Universal
Credit as appropriate, should be applied to them in real-terms.
I think it would also be fair for those MPs claiming to be sick to have to undergo the same
Work Capacity Test as people on Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance.
Those MPs who pass this test should not be allowed any allowances, and/or if they dont
return to work then maybe a bye-election should be called?

Reundancy Payments for MPs

In terms of MPs who are retiring:

If they continue to receive a payment for leaving their ministerial post or as an MP, the
payment they receive should not be above the maximum allowed for redundancy pay.
Any pension they receive should be no more than someone in the private sector would
receive in a similarly waged job.

Staffing Allowances for MPs

It would be my ideal if one day any elected representative with a staffing allowance would only be
allowed to use this to engage qualified and independent civil servants as opposed to party hacks. It
might be that if the same civil servants stayed in place regardless of who the MP was, this might
provide the people with a better and more consistent experience. I have had problems dealing with
MPs whom I have a difference of opinion like Steve Rotheram due to him employing party hacks

 like Gavin Callaghan who lack the maturity and ethics to act in the public interest, and with the
values expected in a democratic society, in the way an experienced civil servant doing the same job
would.