Public to Be Consulted on MPs’ Pay in New Ipsa Initiative

The Ipsa Pay Forum Initiative

Ipsa to Launch Public Consultation on MPs’ Salaries

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will invite 25 members of the public to take part in a national forum to discuss MP salaries, but some are questioning whether this is the right approach.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), responsible for overseeing MPs’ pay and expenses, has announced plans to consult members of the public on the issue of parliamentary salaries. In the coming weeks, 10,000 letters will be sent to randomly selected UK residents as part of a citizen engagement initiative. Ultimately, 25 participants will be chosen to take part in a deliberative forum, conducted online over two full days and two evenings, with a modest payment of £250 provided for their time.

The move is intended to improve transparency and public understanding around how MPs are paid and how their business costs are funded, especially in the wake of the expenses scandal of 2010.

What the Public Currently Thinks

According to a 2021 survey by Find Out Now, public opinion on MPs’ pay is clear:

62% of respondents believed MPs are paid too much.
Only 3% thought their pay was too low.
27% said it was about right.
8% were unsure.

While the initiative is intended to reflect public views, some critics argue that salary decisions in complex governance structures should be guided by economic context, public spending priorities, and expert input, not simply opinion polling.

Concerns About Public-Led Decision Making

The idea of asking randomly selected members of the public to weigh in on MPs’ pay has raised eyebrows. Some commentators draw comparisons to Br#xit, where a nationwide referendum, albeit legally mandated, resulted in long-term political and economic ramifications.

In the years since Brexit, the UK economy has faced a range of fiscal pressures, with the Office for Budget Responsibility and Bloomberg Economics estimating that Brexit may cost the country more than £100 billion in lost output, and a potential 4% reduction in long-term GDP. As the government seeks to balance public finances, reforms to disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and broader austerity measures have come under scrutiny.

This has prompted debate about whether complex financial matters, such as MPs’ remuneration, should be influenced by individuals who may not have experience in economics, governance, or public budgeting.

Who Might Be Better Placed to Advise?

Rather than relying solely on a random sample of citizens, some have suggested that business owners, economists, public sector workers, and representatives from disability charities could provide more informed insights.

These groups understand the realities of balancing budgets, delivering services under financial pressure, and managing staff expectations, making them potentially more equipped to comment on appropriate compensation frameworks for public servants.

Alternative Strategies to Cut Public Spending

Reducing a person’s wage is the same as denying a disabled person personal independence (PIP), which would cause uproar. Instead of adjusting MPs’ salaries, several cost-saving measures could be introduced, including:

Moving constituency clinics online to reduce travel and office-related expenses.
Abolishing second home allowances for MPs and focusing on local accommodation when required.
Prohibiting dual roles for MPs that may present conflicts of interest or reduce their availability for public duties.
Linking MP salary increases to national economic performance mirrors the approach applied to many public sector roles.

These strategies could result in savings for the taxpayer while aligning political remuneration with broader public expectations and economic reality.

Conclusion: A Chance for Reflection or Another Gamble?

Ipsa’s initiative offers a rare opportunity for public engagement in parliamentary processes. However, some argue that without the right mix of participants, it could become more symbolic than effective, especially at a time when public trust in government spending is under strain.

Ensuring that a diverse and well-informed panel contributes to discussions on MPs’ pay could help restore credibility and fairness in a system still recovering from previous controversies.