"In Parliament, I've seen grown men cry over MPs' expenses"

If you think MPs are over-paid, think again. An anonymous MP explains how a flat salary and little chance of ministerial perks cause misery over childcare costs and mortgage payments.

In the pig swill of Westminster something new is stirring.

After two decades of MPs arguing for more pay colleagues are falling over themselves to forego any pay rise, ever. Not now. Not in the future, but please let me keep my pension is the sotto voce subtext.

“I’m happy with my salary,” a headline screams. This young mum will soon learn that childcare costs when you work to midnight will eat it up. Hope she’s got an overdraft or a rich husband. Nick Clegg starts an inevitable Dutch auction by pledging to forego any rise. Easy for him now his rich wife doesn’t have to pay those private school fees after all.

There’s a sigh of inevitability from colleagues as each leader comes out to condemn any pay rise. They’re always first in the queue (we’d be hammered if he didn’t, said one advisor) these leaders with their generous Government salaries, rich wives and ministerial cars.

But this time less anger from the rank and file. And in a sign that the troughs of mud covered expenses have been well and truly emptied there is a palpable uncomfortable feeling about being paid more.

The impending election fills us with dread as candidates will be pressured to declare that they will forgo the pay rise. Easy for the candidate with no hope of winning. A different matter if you have a mortgage to pay. “It’s our job,” says one colleague plaintively.

Tory A-listers are still reeling. Many sacrificed good careers with prospects for a flat salary and little chance of a ministerial job. I’ve seen grown men in tears because of the system of expenses that pillories MPs and makes many afraid to claim.

Others say that you need money to do this job now, “I’m lucky I did well in a previous life so I don’t need to claim anything”, one told me sanguinely in the coffee queue. Not uncommon. And there’s the female MP whose husband gave up his job to do the childcare because it doesn’t pay him to work. Not uncommon with many families but most people imagine MPs can afford full time nannies. The reality is far from that for most.

The young families are struggling the most. If they have a London mortgage or rent (and as we spend half a week in London a number do) the maths just don’t work.

Bravely Mark Pritchard sticks his head above the parapet to declare that Parliament must not be just for the privileged. Multi-millionaire and hero of the working man Adam Afriyie has been brave (and rich) enough to repeat this for three years.

All parties unite in a bit of “why do we do the job” “how often do you think about giving up?” moaning. Well, there’s a long queue of people keen to take it on. Though in some seats the shortlists these days are very short. The reality check about the money and the prospects increasingly makes wannabes think twice. And many walk away.

Pritchard and Afriyie are right. This place must not become a place just for the privileged. Richer MPs will forego more pay because they can. The poorer will because they feel guilty. And this is why we set up an independent body to take the decision out of our hands.

There is one unifying cry – we created the monster that is now putting us  through this prolonged agony of a pre-announcement, a speech and then (oh wait for the abuse) a public consultation before any decision.

So we are to blame for a body which pays its communications official £20,000 a year more than MPs.

There is never a good time to increase MPs’ pay but doing a catch-up every five years will always mean it is too much. So why isn’t the salary linked to another job that the public understand? Should MPs be offered two thirds of a GP’s salary or three quarters? And while we’re at it let’s stop the lunacy that describes employing staff to respond to constituents as “expenses”. If anything underlines the other worldliness of Parliament, that does. 

Now read Eleanor Margolis explain why we need our MPs to be less "moaty" - ie professionals, not wealthy hobbyists.

 

The Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496