MPs have voted against giving themselves an above-inflation pay rise, in line with Prime Minister Gordon Brown's calls for restraint.

Mr Brown had urged them to vote for a below-inflation rise as an example to public sector workers.

MPs rejected a backbench move to raise pay by 2.3% this year and about 4.7% next year, by 196 votes to 155.

They backed a 2.25% pay rise without a vote and rejected moves to boost pay with a £650-a-year "catch-up" payment.

'Catch-up payments'

Speaking ahead of the votes, Mr Brown said MPs should "recognise that the settlements in the public sector for these key workers have been around 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 (%), when they vote on this year's pay".

And Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman said they needed to get on with their work "free from the innuendo and misrepresentations about pay, which have hung over this House too long".

An independent review by Sir John Baker had recommended that MPs' pay be linked to the public sector average earnings index - and include a £650-a-year "catch-up" payment - which would amount to around 4.4% rise in total.

But the government opposed this. It wants MPs to receive the median average of "a wide basket of public sector workers" - amounting to around 2.25%.

The review on pay also recommended stripping MPs of the power to set their own rates - a plan backed by ministers.

'Grasp the nettle'

Shadow House of Commons leader Theresa May said the Conservatives supported the government's recommendations.

She said MPs were faced with "an important and historic decision" that would "start to restore the broken trust" between the public and politicians.

But for the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes urged MPs to "grasp the nettle" and accept Sir John's proposals - arguing his party had a "consistent position" that "when you ask for independent advice about public sector pay, you then follow it - on nurses or on police."

Conservative backbencher David MacLean said the evidence suggested MPs should be paid £75,000.

He said: "We have the responsibility of making mega, mega decisions and for that we are getting the level of pay of a second-tier officer in a district council".

And Labour MP Don Touhig said: "However impressive it may look to put on hair shirts now and support proposals that would keep members' pay down for the short term, in the long term we are simply storing up trouble."

'More rigorous'

MPs are now debating proposals to change their expenses system in line with recommendations from the Members Estimate Committee, which carried out a five-month review in the wake of the furore over Tory MP Derek Conway's payments to his son.

Committee member Lib Dem MP Nick Harvey opened the debate by saying the row had led to a change in public opinion - and a belief that the system of allowances was excessive.

He said, in order to restore the reputation of the House of Commons, "we need a more rigorous system of audit and assurance" and said the system by which MPs certified their own expenses was "simply not a practice that takes place in other walks of life"..

Asked how much the committee's recommendations - which include external auditing and spot checks, was likely to cost and how much it would save, Mr Harvey replied: "The objective of this exercise is to restore the reputation of this House and its members."

(BBC)

<< Back