Independent Pay Review
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32981549

"MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said there appeared to be no "material" reason to alter its proposal, first put forward in 2013.

Unless "new evidence" emerged, MPs' pay will rise from £67,060 to £74,000.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa."



Remind me what MPs say about the AFPRB.

I could stomach a 10% rise if there were ~10% fewer of 'em.

Be about the only way the mil' will get more pay...

I understand there is a petition on the webthingy for those who are less than ecstatic about it.

MPs pay rise
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't actually think that GBP74,000 is a massive amount of money for the job that an MP does (or should do). The level of responsibility they have is pretty high and when compared to a 'civilian' job with a similar level they are probably woefully underpaid.

This doesn't alter the fact that I think most of them are a waste of good oxygen and that the timing of the rise is ridiculous to say the least. However, if we, as the tax paying public, want the right people to represent us then they need to be paid for the job they do. With this pay rise they are now roughly on a par with a top rate PAS Flt Lt Pilot. Is that really too much money in the grand scheme of things?!

Let's hope this doesn't lead to a pay cut for PAS Pilots!

BV:O

I would agree with Bob Viking, if it wasn't for the mahoosive allowances that supplement that basic salary.

i don't recall such benefits when I was serving ;)

I don't recall having a house paid for where I work whist I have another for my family wherever I would like to live. I don't recall being able to keep my family stable just because my job was elsewhere. I don't recall being able to claim for a raft of things including going to my family home whenever I wanted. That's just a few. Those benefits are worth a lot of money. They do not have to worry about a lot of "cost of living" expenses that I had to.

Sorry, not too much sympathy for a backbench MP' salary. Especially when they milk the system in a way that would put their employees in clink.

Expenses
 

I will admit to not being fully in the loop about all of the benefits they can claim. I believe though that the pay review also acknowledged that some of the so called benefits would be removed as a result of an increased salary. I could be way wide of the mark of course. You are absolutely right that their generous package is not exactly in line with that seen in other branches of government service.

Please don't take all of this to mean that I sympathise with MPs in any way and that I don't still hold them in the lowest regard as a proffession. I don't like them any more than the next man and I agree wholeheartedly that the allowances scheme is not exactly well aligned with what we have to put up with but we do very different jobs.

Of course I would love to have the same allowances that they get and I would love to be paid more. As awesome as I am though and as important as my job is I understand that I don't shoulder the same level of responsibility as an MP. I am also something of a realist.

Where I see them seriously lacking though is in leadership. On the whole I don't think they understand that this is a vital part of their job. To act as a voice (and therefore a leader) for many thousands of people.

I can see why it annoys people though. If they are allowed to have a truly independent pay review then so should every department. If they can disagree with the AFPRB and apply restrictions then why can't they do the same to their own? This is the bit that angers me far more than the amount of money they get paid.

Good leaders would accept poor pay as the price to pay for being a leader. They would then understand that the British public might hold them in slightly higher regard if they felt we were all in it together.

If the pay review body had acknowledged that they were underpaid and said that the pay rise would come once the government is operating with a budget surplus then I think that would have been the best solution for all concerned. It may even act as some sort of motivation do do the job right.

BV:8

Unlike the Force's position where even reasonable allowances, that just allowed one to reclaim minor expenses incurred in the course of duty, have been continually eroded, but not really replaced by any meaningful (10%) pay rise.

I don't think that justification runs.

CM
 

The issue of our allowances is a thread in it's own right. I hate what the MOD have done to them. Going away used to be fun but now it's a ballache just trying to get a fraction of the money you spent back.

The RCAF system by comparison is like ours used to be. You go away for three days you get three days worth of cash and you spend it how you wish. Although I've heard rumours that the senior echelons of the Canadian Military rather like the sound of our receipted actuals system!:eek:

It would be fun to watch an MP try to operate on our allowances for just a week though. That would definitely be the best way to get the system changed.

BV:ok:

Quite right, BV.

So, let's just remind ourselves how rubbish the system is...

2*. Courtney, go the meeting at Coningsy tomorrow morning for me. Here's my brief.

Courtney. Yes Sir.

Examines train timetable, given that it's already dark at High Wycombe. Call MT at Coningsy for collection from railhead, no answer. Call, MT at HW for self drive. All gone. OK, I'll drive. Wife has car for her work, I go on motorbike. Submit claim for mileage, rejected as MT and trains were available as alternatives to personal transport.

They were wrong on two counts: a) neither could be arranged when I was tasked, b) more than one alternative is bad grammar.

Oh, if only we all worked the hours that suit the money savers.

Do MPs have to put up with that? Do some of them impose such a system on us?

CM
 

I don't think we even need to dig that deeply to find examples. Unless I am way out of date or my memory is crap (not impossible if I'm honest) we are expected to spend no more than roughly GBP25 per day to feed ourselves when away from base and on duty in the UK. Bearing in mind duty of care to employees and recommended dietary habits exactly how and where is this feasible without frequenting establishments of the ilk of McDs?!

By comparison when deployed with the RCAF I get roughly CAD100 per day of subsistence and incidentals. I don't have to faff around with receipts either.

Oh God. You've started me off now. I'm back to the UK in a couple of months as well. I can feel the crewroom rants brewing already.

I'm hoping to buy a house as well. I wonder if the GBP5000 will cover the cost of stamp duty, estate agents fees and other selected costs from the sale and purchase of a house. I sincerely hope this has been increased in my absence and somebody forgot to tell me.

BV:mad:

It's OK. Your MP will feel your pain, BV. :ok:

In the real world, ot is increasingly rare to find employers who sign off on a daily rate of cash to be chucked at people for them to spend as they wish. Ultimately we are custodians of public money, we are obliged to try and spend it wisely and i dont think its unreasonable to claim actual expenses for what you actually spent.

Yes everyone has a story about an issue with receiepts, but this isnt a problem exclusive to the military and its just part of working life. At a time when military public image and awareness is declining thanks to the end of herrick, longing for the days of large chunks of cash just for going away to do your job, when everyone else has to provide reasonable receipts seems a good way to lose public sympathy pdq.

All very well Jim but it is hardly good custodianship of public money when the system sends out a bill for 2p (with 3 reminders since the victim had the nerve to be on Ops when the first iteration was sent). Incidentally , most airlines still have a "rates" system.

What is worse though is when the auditors can't even read their own rules properly and one ends up having to waste time resubmitting the claim -all due to their incompetence. I don't know what 2 auditors cost but a return to rates would save those salaries for a start.

Back in the mid-1970s, tempers were running rather high at RAF Brawdy - this was before all the pay rises of the following (Thatcher) years. So an MP was persuaded to come down from London to 'talk to the chaps' so that he could understand the problem more clearly.

This was when there was only one Severn Bridge and the M4 stopped at Newport, apart from a small bit new Swansea. So escaping from Wales took ages along the A40 and A48. So the MP didn't exactly get off to a good start when talking to the SNCOs when he announced that he didn't realise quite how far Brawdy was from Westminster..... Much murmuring from the assembled throng, then the fist question:

"Sir, can you tell us why you've come all this way at £(lots) per mile to tell us why we only get £(not very much) per mile for the same car?"
"Look, I asked for serious questions, not trivial ones"
"Well, sir, if you can't answer something as simple as that, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?"
:uhoh:

I appreciate we're not toing to agree on the issue of allowances versus cash rates. My own view, having experienced both systems is yes the jpa system can sometimes do something a bit odd, but its not that bad compared to some hr systems i've encountered elsewhere in government.

My big moral objection to rates is that too many people i knew saw them not as subsistence, but as additional salary. They'd get cheapest possible meal or bed, then use it to either buy beer or save it for later. Fine, they were quids in, but the t&s budgets took a hammering. i just dont think its reasonable in this day and age to justify an expenses system which is abused as a salary top up facility rather than regunding legitimate actual expenses.

CM,

While not defending MPs, I would point out that their job requires them to work at two places at once - yours did not.

If the RAF wanted you to work at Leuchars, you worked at Leuchars. If you elected to keep your family at Lincoln while you did so that was your choice, but you had to pay for it.

By contrast, an MP is elected to represent his constituents. An MP for Fife is required to work at Westminster, but also to be available in his constituency in Fife to meet his constituents. He is required to work in two places at once, quite far apart. The system of housing allowances was attempting to cater for this - note that MPs within a certain commutable distance of central London got no such support.



Having said that, they all beneath contempt in my opinion, and are largely self serving individuals I would quite happily see thrown on the scrap heap!

It's a very fair point, Biggus. Am I right in thinking that claiming for second mortgages was stopped around 2010? I recall it was proposed, that and recouping any profits from selling the place. Clearly, before that the UK tax-payers were funding ownership of a second house by supporting a second mortgage. That meant the MP make a profit from public money when they sold the property.

Do they have to rent now?

I take Biggus' point about "working" in two places.

Having just seen the possibility of Hyde Park Barracks being flogged off, why not keep it and turn it into a Mess for beanstealing MPs?

If your constituency is more than - say - 50 miles from Westminster, you qualify for a room - and PAYD facilities too of course!!

Any probs with that??

Without wanting to sound disrespectful,
One wonders if Charles Kennedy's resettlement allowances will be paid now he is no longer with us, as I should imagine they take a while to get sorted and paid.

Listening to the chairman of IPSA on R4, he declared that polis had expanded their allowances to make up for lack of pay rises and...IPSA are now formalising the reduction of allowances to replace those inflated allowances with a 10% pay-rise!:yuk:
So.... why do the rest of the public sector not get a 10% pay-rise to make up for their losses in T&C's?:D

OAP

No probs with MPs living in mess like accommodation provided the military follow suit and scrap SSSA!

Jim I guess that the important S in all of that is substitute! Ie you only get the allowance when you can't get Mess accm. I wasn't comparing the JPA system with other organisations, only with the simple and easy to administer rates system. As a taxpayer I would say employing more civil servants to send out bills for trivial amounts is pathetic. Come to think of it didn't PUS put out a blog asking for suggestions to save waste? What no one has ever explained is how one of the lowest Caps (UK-£25) is sufficient in one of the most expensive countries. As a final point -why does this MOD allowance (CG words not mine) not apply to the civil servants who set the rules?

They could have solved polis' accommodation in Town once and for all, but instead they chose to sell off various barracks and buildings that could have been converted - OWOB, Chelsea Bks etc

May have been costly at the start to covert to Grade 1 accommodation as some of these buildings need considerable work but no more so than other infra projects, and longer term would have saved a fortune by having MPs accommodation provided for, thus negating the need to rent/buy accommodation at public expense. Andy Burnham already owns a property in Town, but was reportedly 'forced' to rent somewhere by the system at public expense. And they wonder why we don't have a great opinion of them!

Vasco

As far as i am aware, no extra civil servants were employed for jpa audit purposes. The only audits i've had done to me were by mil staff in my UPO or JSAU. The CS has been cut year on year, and the admin grades utterly gutted. Believe me these mythical auditors really dont exist. At best you may have encountered one or two people who had a new job title, but were some of the last survivors of the old admin grades. I am heartily sick of the tired lie that JPA saw extra civil servants recruited to do the admin. Its total utter horse manure.

Secondly, what is this cap and mod allowance you are talking about? The MOD CS is on actual expenses and has been for many many years. More to the point, service expenses are set by military personnel not civilian - i know its more fun to blame the nasty civvies for setting rules, but last time i checked, it was the Military responsible for their T&C not Civvies.

Finally on SSSA - wasnt clear on my post. I meant to say we should build an armed forces central mess in london and put everyone there, and not in Pimlico. The sheer cost of SSSA for London is ridiculous, i've heard and seen figures of north of £100m per year particularly when a mess would pay for itself in savings very quickly. Oddly when i've spoken to my mil colleagues about losing the flat in Pimlico, and having a mess room on some of the MOD estate in London, they get very change resistant, very quickly!

Jim put it this way-at the secret Oxon base there are 2 individuals who do nothing but audit claims.Regardless of their previous employment they would not be needed in a rates system. As for the Cap, when the military changed to actuals we followed the civil servants rules ie reasonable actuals etc. Then all of a sudden our claims were subject to a limit in the case of the UK £25 . Not only that CG at HW (civil servants ) go out of their way to try and ensure you can't even spend that. The MOD limit bit is a direct quote from said organisation.
I take your point about London I just doubt we have the money to invest!

So as far as i can tell, you are grumbling that two civil servants who are likely admin grades, who probably have other duties and who are paid a pittance perform a basic audit and scrutiny function for one of the largest bases in the RAF, which is no different to how many other large companies have auditors for exactly the same purposes on expenses scrutiny.

Its also cheaper to get a CS to audit than mil, so well done Brize for saving money in setting that one up.

As for capping claims - i can barely understand what you are referring to, but as far as i can male out, you are moaning that your claim is limited to £25 for some things? You do realise that this is a fairly standard level dont you? my wifes former company had a £20 limit for expenses and they were fairly large. Across mod as a whole i understand the civvy mod is moving to £25 actuals, if not slightly lower for meals atvthe moment, so no one is getting one over on you.

I am not saying things are perfect, but i am sick to death of bloody whinging about how bad everything is, when in fact it is only on apar with how the rest of the real world acts and treats expenses, and that actually the military expenses system is surprisingly generous compared to an awful lot of places.

There are times i swear i could give everyone in the military a 500% payrise, scrap PAYD, unlimited expenses, and free car and you'd still hear people whinging about how hard done by they are. :ugh:

I guess we will never agree -to my mind (as a taxpayer -no longer a claimant) the system is over-administered. I am also pretty sure that my assumptions about the auditor establishment are correct.

Jimlad, you put make your point as delicately as ever, Sir ;). Seriously, though, I think you make some very good points. The whole point of allowances is to prevent anyone being 'out of pocket' due expenses incurred in the line of duty. Everything has to be caveated with the phrase 'within reason', or whatever official terminology is appropriate. One could even argue that employees, personnel, MPs, representatives (delete as appropriate) would have to feed themselves whether at home, at work or working elsewhere and, therefore, the only allowance should be for any extra cost incurred. But that would not be particularly reasonable so employes don't do that. Good.

During my latter days in the RAF, it wasn't so much the size of the allowances or caps that seemed to me to piss people off, it was the difficulties involved with simply getting your claim processed. Or, the subsequent audits or worse. There is a government requirement to check a percentage of claims (not just for the military), but that does not even have to a particularly intrusive process if done properly as I learned during my subsequent time working at the Open University.

But a lot of folk do, frequently, run into unnecessarily difficult obstacles, or worse, on occasions. And that is not reasonable. I for one was arrested twice and charged with fraud over claims. On both accounts I was acquitted, but the process took well over a year on one occasion. Imagine how enjoyable that was. Both instances could have been cleared up with the Cheif Clerk in ten minutes, but times had changed. Reasonable?

You are right that the system is fundamentally reasonable as long as people can submit reasonable claims with expectation that they will be paid without undue hassle, be they military, CS or otherwise, and that the system will treat people reasonably.

Have I used the term 'reasonable' enough to convey my meaning? :ok:

Independent Pay Review
 

There is one key reason that a lot of us RAF types hate the actuals system. It works absolutely fine when one person goes away for a couple of nights. They collect receipts and claim back their money via JPA.
However, now imagine a squadron (150-200 people) going on a detachment for 4-6 weeks. They are given a weeks worth of money in advance. At the end of that week they must all line up with a fistful of receipts and paperwork to present to a team of adminers in order to work out how much money they get for the following week. This process repeats itself at the end of every week.
Under the old system this job could be done by one clerk and all they had to do was give out rates to each individual and collect a signature.
It saved money by not requiring multiple clerks to deploy, it was far simpler and it didn't piss off every member of the detachment or force every individual to spend several hours completing mundane paperwork.
You can call it whinging if you like but these are the hairs that break the backs of camels.
I've said it before but if money saving was the aim they could have just cut the rates by 10-20% and kept the old system. People would have complained at first but that would have dissipated eventually.
Still, what's done is done.
BV

So in other words Bob, it is unreasonable to expect a bunch of HMs finest to go through the total nausea of putting reciepts in their wallet for a week and putting them in a claim?

Sorry, thats just pathetic. I am currently overseas on detached duty, and i've been away for a week. Its been sheer hell for me to go to the effort or putting my reciept in a wallet knowing that i'llhave to show it to someone, just likeany other employee in a large business.

Come on guYs - there are some things worth moaning about. Having to get a copy of a reciept and keep it in your wallet to do some admin not remotely an issue compared to what you can be exposed to. This is what the real world is like-sprry to burst your bubble.

Its even more relevant when we hear the department is facing £500m of cuts - shall we go back to the old system and scrap jit, or shall we just cut back on the ability of people to kick the arrse out of a far too generous system?

Jimlad
 

So how many people are you away with? Is it just you on your own or are you part of a group of 200?

If you'd taken the time to read my post instead of taking your blinkered view of the world you'd notice that I said it works well for an individual.

The admin is not quite as easy as you think it is. It's not just a matter of showing a receipt. It's the ridiculous forms that have to be filled out showing every meal and how much was spent as well as the receipts. Multiply this process by 200 and you have many wasted man hours alone. Now imagine the job of the adminer who has to read the form, check it is correct, calculate how much money is now to be issued to that individual and issue it. Multiply that by 200 as well. Now multiply all of the above by the number of weeks of the detachment and you get many more wasted man hours. Don't forget the audits after the detachment as well.

Does this process save money?

Not quite as easy as you showing your receipts to someone is it?

As I said I would have accepted a cut in allowances to prevent the advent of this system. There's your saving.

As far as calling people pathetic how about you pull your head out of your backside and put yourself in other people's shoes for a minute.

I'm sure you are awesome and your life is easy. The fact is that this sytem is a pain in the rear end and it gets up everyone's nose. If that's pathetic then so be it.

I fully disagree with people using rates to supplement their salary. But to be honest I never went on detachment with anyone like that. I did see young blokes spend it all on alcohol though. They were far happier!

Your inability to listen to others is painful. If you are representative of civil servants then do you really wonder why they get such bad press.

BV

Standing by to be called nasty names.

BV, well said!:D

OAP

It was always my personal belief that the JPA claims system was so convoluted and time consuming (deliberately so?) that for small claims many (most?) people couldn't be bothered to claim that to which they were entitled to under the rules pertaining at the time.

Perhaps that in itself generated a cost saving?

CM,

Sorry I didn't answer your questions about the changes in rules for MPs mortgages for second homes vs renting, wasn't meaning to be rude.

The short answer is I don't know, I would have to google it....

Biggus, it's OK. I understand it's just renting now. No worries.

Long before then Biggus, particularly with the use of private cars for dashes around the base and locally. I remember being told in the late 60's that the Service would collapse if we merely played by the rules and insisted on MT providing direct support to day-to-day personnel movement in support of ops around a station and its environs. Can you imagine it....
"MT I need a car and driver now to take me from SHQ to the Bunker" "MT I need a car and driver now to take me from the Bunker out around the perimeter to the Squadron. " MT I now need a car and driver to take me back from the Squadron to the Officers' Mess for a Summer Ball Committee meeting"' etc. etc. and multiplied by dozens of others a day going about their business in support of the Crown. ( Yes, I did have MT vehicles later allocated for my own use, the first of which ( sort of) was a "sit up and beg" bicycle from the SWO's stores ).

BV, once again, good point, well made.

20 people turning up with a photocopy of the single bill for supper ain't going to be accepted. It will always come back to the argument of, "but I didn't have the onion bahjis or the cucumber rhaita!" Or, in reality, who had what, who spent what.

When it all gets too difficult, the system just needs to be "reasonable".

Folk on detachment don't have time to do the admins' jobs for them. And that is why I said that people are normally more pissed off with a difficult, seemingly unsupportive system than with the rates themselves. Sorry, "allowances" themselves.

Charles Kennedy died after he lost his parliamentary seat. I would think he was entitled to the benefits attaching to losing his seat, and I trust his estate will be paid what he is due. That would only be right and proper, and I hope it eases the financial pain of Kennedy's death for his widow and son. I have a steel helmet hand for "incoming"............... (PS: I don't vote L-D either)