Comments on: Expenses. Again.

By: Angela EL

Angela EL — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:05:41 +0000

I now think debate should stop and some action get under way. Equal pay for equal work and some AMs work as hard if not harder than MPs.
Some are not worth what they are getting paid. In the world I inhabit , there are targets and outputs etc. that have to be achieved,why isn’t this the case with politicians.
There are measurement that can be applied, so give them a basic salary , sensible expenses that cover necessary out of pocket costs; and then put them on a bonus system. So the harder or may be the more effectively they work the more they are rewarded.
May be some one should analyse the numbers of AMs who are just on the basic salary, between ministers , deputy ministers, committee chairs, opposition leaders and special jobs few are on the basic.
Then we also have AMs with second incomes, we have a few farmers, a few doctors , we have some who do some law practise, some lecturing and some media work.
So it needs to be seen in the round.

By: MH

MH — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:03:41 +0000

Lee, one of the things I’m happiest about in the report is breaking the link between the pay of AMs and MPs. I agree that valuing an AMs work as a percentage of an MPs work was patronizing, probably deliberately so, but I don’t share the conclusion in your last paragraph. In fact I think the opposite is more likely to be true in the longer term.

Prior to 1999, both Wales and Scotland had a greater number of MPs per head of population than England. Because Holyrood had primary lawmaking powers and a larger degree of devolution, the number of Scottish MPs was cut from 72 to 59 in the 2005 election to broadly match the situation in England. (Note that Scotland still has more MPs than a strict pro-rata, but that is only because less densly populated constituences tend to have fewer voters than urban constituencies, so that they don’t become geographically unwieldy. That applies to remote areas of England too.)

The number of Welsh MPs wasn’t cut. But it seems almost certain that the number of Welsh MPs will be cut if the Senedd gets primary lawmaking powers.

When that has happened, the logic of the situation suggests that Welsh MPs should be paid less than English MPs simply because a Welsh MP will not have to deal with health, education and other devolved issues. It wouldn’t be possible to reduce the number of Welsh MPs further (unless there was a general reduction in the number of MPs) because that would mean that Wales and Scotland would have less of a voice on UK and international issues.

So in all probability being an AM will not only become a more responsible job than being a Welsh MP, but it might well carry a salary that reflects that difference.

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:11:50 +0000

could end up with the prospect of becoming an AM being much less attractive than standing for Parliament

If they’re in it for the money, they’re in it for the wrong reasons anyway.

By: Lee Waters

Lee Waters — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:59:57 +0000

I don’t see why MPs should be paid more than AMs. Its stems from a very patronising view taken by the Senior Salary Review Board prior to the 1999 elections that the Assembly was an inferior institution.

I was talking to one AM today who made the fair point that each individual proposed reform can be taken on its merits, but the culminative impact is to penalise those who wish to stand for the Assembly.

In this climate it would be impossible to reject Roger Jones’ report, but I’m unconvinced that this is the best way to make reforms. After all why should this panel get carte blanche?

We’ll see what comes out of Westminster but today’s events could end up with the prospect of becoming an AM being much less attractive than standing for Parliament, and I’m not sure whose long term interest that serves.

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:13:14 +0000

AMs having to give up their second homes.

Wow! If that had been suggested six months ago they would never have agreed to it…