Morning:
14°c
MPs demanding a bumper salary increase to £100,000 were helped today by the former head of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Sir John Baker attacked the "cowardice and hypocrisy" of MPs who had secretly milked expenses for years rather than accept recommended rises to their £64,766 salary.
He called for a cut in the number of MPs to 450 and bigger pay to attract good-quality people.
"That, too, is going to require the right rate for the job, and today that will not be far short of £100,000," Sir John wrote in a letter to the Times. "That means paying the right price, not settling for shoddy goods in the bargain-basement."
Sir John's salaries body made a stream of recommendations for higher salaries but successive Prime Ministers ordered backbenchers to vote them down.
It came as some senior MPs were accused of using delaying tactics in the hope of retiring at the election without paying back expenses.
Reader views (4)
Sir John Baker is definitely thinking along the correct lines when he says the number of MPs should be cut. But why stop at 450 ?
- Doug Watt, london (EUSSR)14
Sir John Baker reckons bigger pay will attract good-quality people. How does that work? Bigger pay is more likely to attract all sorts, including the ones you don´t want.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands
£100,000.00pa for every MP?
Pay them exactly what they are worth - NOTHING.
Where are the police?
Where are the handcuffs?
One law for Joe Public and an entirely different law for MP's caught with their long smelly snouts buried deep in the trough of taxpayers' money.
- Reuben Camara, Plot 1, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR
Doesn't sound unreasonable.
Who do we want to be governed by? Capable people who should be well-rewarded for taking on the, frankly bad, job, or the lowest common denominator who's all that's available for the money (and we've all seen where that leads in a sad number of cases)?
If you pay peanuts . . .
- Brian, London
