Keighley MP Kris Hopkins rejects parliamentary pay rise

Keighley MP Kris Hopkins today hit out at the controversial 11 per cent pay rise being awarded to parliamentary members.

And he has vowed not to accept the increase, which would take effect in 2015.

The increase, proposed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), would take MPs’ annual salaries to £74,000.

All three party leaders have condemned the move and said it would be wrong for MPs to receive such a large pay rise.

Mr Hopkins said: “It was made clear to the IPSA – an independent body – that the current restrictions on public sector pay should be borne in mind when deciding any future rises in MPs’ pay. It is infuriating that this request has been ignored.

“As I have said many times before, I am a public sector worker and should not be treated any differently to anyone else. This proposed pay rise is not something I agree with.”

Fellow Tory MP Philip Davies, whose Shipley constituency includes Cullingworth and Denholme, said he understood how unacceptable to the public the increase is.

“This is something proposed by the IPSA – the law was changed back in 2009 to explicitly stop MPs having any role in the setting of their own pay and expenses,” he added.

“I would urge my constituents to either make their views known to the IPSA directly or if they e-mail or write to me I will ensure that all representations are passed on.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:03am Tue 10 Dec 13

Elizabeth Mitchell says...

Well done Kris Hopkins on your stance and to your colleague in Shipley Philip Davies.

The news of this rise was unpalatable to the public and those of you who speak out reassure us that some, if not all politicians, do care. I shall be writing to IPSA.
Well done Kris Hopkins on your stance and to your colleague in Shipley Philip Davies. The news of this rise was unpalatable to the public and those of you who speak out reassure us that some, if not all politicians, do care. I shall be writing to IPSA. Elizabeth Mitchell

11:07am Tue 10 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

By rejecting the 11% does this also mean that MPs are rejecting the reforms to the pension scheme which would bring it more in line with other public servants?

It is possible that the public rejection of the pay rise detracts focus away from the additional reforms which further restrict MP spending and remuneration.

Smoke and mirrors?
By rejecting the 11% does this also mean that MPs are rejecting the reforms to the pension scheme which would bring it more in line with other public servants? It is possible that the public rejection of the pay rise detracts focus away from the additional reforms which further restrict MP spending and remuneration. Smoke and mirrors? MarkPullen

12:54pm Tue 10 Dec 13

pjl20 says...

As an Under-Secretary of State, of course Kris Hopkins gets paid a further allowance for his duties, on top of his MPs pay.

So refusing to accept an increase in MPs pay still leaves him quids in.

Surely having the best qualified and most experienced people as MPs should be the prime objective? Paying a less than attractive salary will exclude many from standing as a candidate to be a constituency MP.

As for MP 'benefits' - Why do we not have state-owned apartments down in Whitehall / Westminster for all MPs? Such facilities are provided in Washington, USA for Congressmen and Senators when they are on business at Capitol Hill.

About time 'second home' allowances were abolished and new rules brought in. The system is open to widespread abuse.

A re-adjustment to all allowances, pension arrangements, etc., whilst this pay rise to £74,000 is made, would clear up many of the public objections. The pay rise cannot now be halted, as the review took place by an independent panel.
As an Under-Secretary of State, of course Kris Hopkins gets paid a further allowance for his duties, on top of his MPs pay. So refusing to accept an increase in MPs pay still leaves him quids in. Surely having the best qualified and most experienced people as MPs should be the prime objective? Paying a less than attractive salary will exclude many from standing as a candidate to be a constituency MP. As for MP 'benefits' - Why do we not have state-owned apartments down in Whitehall / Westminster for all MPs? Such facilities are provided in Washington, USA for Congressmen and Senators when they are on business at Capitol Hill. About time 'second home' allowances were abolished and new rules brought in. The system is open to widespread abuse. A re-adjustment to all allowances, pension arrangements, etc., whilst this pay rise to £74,000 is made, would clear up many of the public objections. The pay rise cannot now be halted, as the review took place by an independent panel. pjl20

1:03pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Stevo54 says...

But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something?
But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something? Stevo54

1:12pm Tue 10 Dec 13

pjl20 says...

Stevo54 wrote:
But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something?
IPSA has control of MPs pay.

However much government ministers, such as Treasury Minister, Danny Alexander, may dislike it. The MPs pay increase is going ahead.

The BBC News website will also confirm this point.
[quote][p][bold]Stevo54[/bold] wrote: But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something?[/p][/quote]IPSA has control of MPs pay. However much government ministers, such as Treasury Minister, Danny Alexander, may dislike it. The MPs pay increase is going ahead. The BBC News website will also confirm this point. pjl20

1:26pm Tue 10 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Stevo54 wrote:
But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something?
IPSA has control of MPs pay.

However much government ministers, such as Treasury Minister, Danny Alexander, may dislike it. The MPs pay increase is going ahead.

The BBC News website will also confirm this point.
So why are so many MPs openly claiming that they won't accept the increase?

Maybe to enhance their image to the public?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevo54[/bold] wrote: But don't MP's have to vote the pay increase through in the House? if they vote no then it doesn't become law right? or am I missing something?[/p][/quote]IPSA has control of MPs pay. However much government ministers, such as Treasury Minister, Danny Alexander, may dislike it. The MPs pay increase is going ahead. The BBC News website will also confirm this point.[/p][/quote]So why are so many MPs openly claiming that they won't accept the increase? Maybe to enhance their image to the public? MarkPullen

3:27pm Tue 10 Dec 13

pjl20 says...

All I can say to Mark Pullen in his comments above, is to ask who can say?

Perhaps sitting MPs think that they will get more sympathy from their constituents, by refusing the increase. But can they individually refuse it?

The cost of operating each constituency throughout the country and there are 650 of them. Is far more that just an MP's salary.

Renting office premises, employing staff to run them, besides the expenses involved in operation and of an MP's routine duties.

This total may be as much as £250,000 a year. Every constituency has a right to ask for a thorough breakdown of the audited costs.
All I can say to Mark Pullen in his comments above, is to ask who can say? Perhaps sitting MPs think that they will get more sympathy from their constituents, by refusing the increase. But can they individually refuse it? The cost of operating each constituency throughout the country and there are 650 of them. Is far more that just an MP's salary. Renting office premises, employing staff to run them, besides the expenses involved in operation and of an MP's routine duties. This total may be as much as £250,000 a year. Every constituency has a right to ask for a thorough breakdown of the audited costs. pjl20

9:01pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Katiery says...

It looks good to the constituents when an M.P. says he/she will not take the salary rise. Problem is, it's a done deal, so they will still get it even whilst saying they are against it. Who said 'we are all in this together'? I think not!
It looks good to the constituents when an M.P. says he/she will not take the salary rise. Problem is, it's a done deal, so they will still get it even whilst saying they are against it. Who said 'we are all in this together'? I think not! Katiery

12:33pm Fri 13 Dec 13

MarkPullen says...

Reports on the news yesterday indicate that the pay rise would be paid whether a MP objected or not.

If this goes ahead, along with other changes, then the only course would be to pay an amount back or donate to charity.
Reports on the news yesterday indicate that the pay rise would be paid whether a MP objected or not. If this goes ahead, along with other changes, then the only course would be to pay an amount back or donate to charity. MarkPullen

6:55pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Little Green Man says...

In that case - Chris with a K, do you pledge to donate your pay rise to a local charity of your own choice for the next 12 months??
In that case - Chris with a K, do you pledge to donate your pay rise to a local charity of your own choice for the next 12 months?? Little Green Man

3:19pm Sat 14 Dec 13

notthecivic says...

reading this about our mp not wanting his 11% payrise is just smoke and mirrors in my opinion due the fact that even if he refuses his pay rise it will be given to him and then he can if he so chooses give to a charity or worthy cause in his constituancy . this is in the government legislation on pay rises . but will he give it away ? we will wait and see .
ps mps cannot give the amount back to the pay master general
reading this about our mp not wanting his 11% payrise is just smoke and mirrors in my opinion due the fact that even if he refuses his pay rise it will be given to him and then he can if he so chooses give to a charity or worthy cause in his constituancy . this is in the government legislation on pay rises . but will he give it away ? we will wait and see . ps mps cannot give the amount back to the pay master general notthecivic

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree