Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit): David Cannadine recently wrote an interesting article for the BBC providing an historical perspective on the current scandals about corruption amongst MPs involving pay and allowances. He rightly points out that the introduction of salaries for MPs in 1911 enabled men (and later women) from less privileged social groups to become representatives. Then he puts forward three arguments: First, that MPs are not paid enough; second that their present allowances are more than sufficient; third that they should not be able to vote on their own pay and expenses.
On the first point, as Cannadine implies, the purpose of paying MPs is (or should be) to ensure that people from non-elite backgrounds can enter Parliament, and that as an institution it is thus more representative of the country as a whole. But the case for raising salaries of MPs is often made through comparisons with top private sector jobs. Increasing pay for MPs would be more likely to attract privileged members of society to the job than those who were not already accustomed to earning such sums.
On the second, it is true that MPs' personal allowances are ample. But the resources made available to Parliament as an institution are not. MPs should be provided with additional support for their non-party political scrutiny work, through the attachment of extra research staff to select committees, which are vital to the task of overseeing government in its conduct of policy.
Finally, indepndent control of the award of pay and allowances is essential, and a review of present arrangements might be extended to take in other issues - such as how to shorten the lengthy recesses which currently lead to long periods of time when the government is not held to account at all.
