This petition was submitted during the 2019-2024 parliament
Petition Reform IPSA - cap MP payrises in line with other Public sector pay
Over the last decade MPs pay has risen by over £16k, significantly above pay awards for other public sector employees such as nurses, teachers and police. This is unfair and in the wider economic and political context unjustified, and the way MPs pay increases are decided needs reform.
More details
IPSA may be an independent body but it is clear that reform is needed so that MPs pay awards reflect the wider economic and political climate.
The payrises they have awarded MPs over the last decade are out of touch with the reality of stagnating below inflation pay across the public and private sectors of the UK economy.
The Government should reform legislation govering IPSA so that future pay awards for MPs cannot exceed average pay rises for other public sector employees.
This petition is closed This petition ran for 6 months
Government responded
This response was given on 19 January 2021
MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses are governed by independent external regulation and there are no plans for the Government to introduce legislation to cap MPs’ pay.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has announced that salaries for Members of Parliament will remain unchanged for the financial year 2021-22. Details of this decision can be found here: https://www.theipsa.org.uk/publications/consultations/review-of-mps-pay-and-pensions
The Government does not decide what resources are available to MPs. IPSA is responsible for setting and regulating MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. It has a statutory duty to review MPs’ pay in the first year of each Parliament. IPSA is independent of Parliament and the Government. This provides assurance to the public that decisions relating to MPs’ pay are made independently, and that MPs’ use of taxpayers’ money is well regulated. It also ensures MPs are adequately resourced to carry out their democratic duties on behalf of their constituents.
The Chancellor has set out a pay restraint policy for the public sector with a very limited number of exceptions and on 23 November the Prime Minister indicated that, given the circumstances, he did not believe MPs should receive a pay rise.
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
This is a revised response. The Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition. You can find the original response towards the bottom of the petition page (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554400)
Related activity
Original Government response
The Government does not decide what resources are available to MPs. The system of business costs and expenses, as well as MPs’ pay and pensions, is governed by independent external regulation.
Read the response in full
IPSA has announced that salaries for Members of Parliament will remain unchanged for the financial year 2021-22. Details of this decision can be found here: https://www.theipsa.org.uk/publications/consultations/review-of-mps-pay-and-pensions
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is responsible for setting and regulating MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. It has a statutory duty to review MPs’ pay in the first year of each Parliament. IPSA is independent of Parliament and the Government. This provides assurance to the public that decisions relating to MPs’ pay are made independently, and that MPs’ use of taxpayers’ money is well regulated. It also ensures MPs are adequately resourced to carry out their democratic duties on behalf of their constituents.
The Chancellor has set out a pay restraint policy for the public sector with a very limited number of exceptions and on 23 November the Prime Minister indicated that, given the circumstances, he did not believe MPs should receive a pay rise.
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
This response was given on 14 December 2020. The Petitions Committee then requested a revised response, that more directly addressed the request of the petition.