MPs' pay to rise by 2.8% to £93,904 in April
MPs' salaries will rise by 2.8% to £93,904 in the next financial year, Parliament's expenses watchdog has confirmed.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) said the decision was in line with wider Government pay recommendations for public sector workers.
Under the Parliamentary Standards Act, IPSA is required to review MPs' salaries by early July within the first year of a new parliament.
The watchdog said it would hold a further consultation on the determination of MPs' pay for the rest of the current parliamentary term in the coming months.
The increase takes an MP's salary to £93,904, up from £91,346, and is slightly below the current inflation rate of 3%.
At the start of the last Parliament, in 2019, annual pay stood at £79,468.
MPs do not determine their own salaries, which have been set by Ipsa since the watchdog was created in 2009 in the wake of the expenses scandal.
Ipsa chairman Richard Lloyd said the body aims to 'make fair decisions on pay, both for MPs and the public' after the increase was first proposed in February.
The watchdog is independent of Parliament and the Government and considers a range of metrics when deciding on pay, including national statistics on average earnings in the public sector and the wider economic climate.
It comes ahead of the spring statement on Wednesday, in which the Chancellor is expected to announce spending cuts as she seeks to balance the books amid disappointing growth figures and higher-than-expected borrowing.
Last year, the watchdog recommended an inflation-busting 5.5% increase to MPs' pay, lifting basic salaries to £91,346 from £86,584.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Everyone Is Buying Time in an Unstable World
Welcome to Balance of Power, bringing you the latest in global politics. If you haven't yet, sign up here. In an age when decisions of great consequence are announced — and reversed — in an instant on social media, it may seem like a paradox that governments worldwide are looking to buy time.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Doug Ford's Bill 5 is now law in Ontario. Here's what happens next
Now that Ontario's controversial Bill 5 is law, all eyes are on what Premier Doug Ford does with the new powers it gives his government. Bill 5, also called the Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, empowers the government (among other things) to create special economic zones, where cabinet can exempt companies or projects from having to comply with any provincial law, provincial regulation or municipal bylaw. Ford pitches Bill 5 as a way of shoring up Ontario's economy in the face of Donald Trump's tariffs by speeding up major infrastructure and resource projects. Ford's officials insist the government won't exempt any company in a special economic zone from Ontario's minimum wage rules or other labour laws. But the wide-open way the legislation is written would allow cabinet to hand out exemptions from any law, whether labour, environmental or operational. Asked this week which laws he's considering overriding with Bill 5 — and whether any laws are off the table for such exemptions — Ford offered no specifics. WATCH | Your quick guide to Bill 5: "I just want to speed up the process," he said during a news conference on Thursday, moments after Bill 5 received Royal Assent, making it law. Ford then talked of how long it takes for a mine to get into production, an issue that is actually tackled in a different part of Bill 5: revisions to the Mining Act designed to shorten Ontario's approval process to two years from the current four years. Pressed again on which laws he would exempt companies from in the special economic zones, Ford said every situation is different. Ford wants to move 'as quickly as possible' "Let's see what companies come to the table, and depending on how quickly we can get opportunities and jobs, we'll reveal them," Ford said. Ford wants Ontario's first special economic zone to be the Ring of Fire mineral deposit, some 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, in the heart of Treaty 9 territory. The area is said to be full of so-called critical minerals, such as cobalt, lithium and nickel, in high demand for the tech industry. The premier said on Thursday that he wants to make the Ring of Fire a special economic zone "as quickly as possible" but has also said he won't do so without consulting with First Nations Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce says the province is already "consulting meaningfully" with First Nations and will continue to do so over the coming months. "We're all going to be part of this endeavour to really listen to those voices and help build a common vision for responsible resource development that unlocks the bounty of the resource, to change the lives of northerners and to ensure Indigenous share in that bounty," Lecce said alongside Ford at Thursday's news conference inside Queen's Park. The skepticism from many First Nations leaders is palpable. The Chiefs of Ontario invited Ford to attend their annual assembly June 17 to 19 and sent Ford a message that his attendance would mark the start of consultations on Bill 5. "This legislation, introduced without prior consultation with First Nations rights holders, raises serious concerns due to its far-reaching implications on inherent Treaty rights and community obligations to the land, waters, and wildlife," says the invitation letter from Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict. The Chiefs of Ontario, the umbrella group representing more than 130 First Nations across the province, are warning of "resistance, on the ground, and in the courts" against Bill 5. WATCH | What the 'duty to consult' First Nations means for governments: One thing to watch for in the months to come is whether the provincial government's push to fast-track the Ring of Fire is replicated by the federal government. Ford put the Ring of Fire at the top of his list presented to Prime Minister Mark Carney for consideration as a potential nation-building project. Ford calls Carney 'Santa Claus' Carney asked all the premiers to come to last Monday's First Ministers Meeting in Saskatoon with their ideas of projects that would be "in the national interest," either by helping to diversify the Canadian economy or to reach new export markets. It's now up to Carney to decide which projects merit federal backing, whether through fast-track approvals or funding. Ford described Carney as Santa Claus for this approach. But to make the metaphor accurate, it means Ford and his fellow premiers have merely written their letters to Santa Claus, and they now have to wait until Christmas comes to find out whether Santa brings them what they asked for. The other items on Ford's list are also projects that could be designated special economic zones: new nuclear power plants, a new deep-sea port on James Bay, Ford's vision of a tunnel under Highway 401 through Toronto, and an expansion of the GO Transit network. If Carney endorses any of these, you can expect the Ford government will use its Bill 5 powers to speed up the process of moving that project from endorsement to reality. On Friday, Carney's Liberals tabled a bill in the House of Commons called the One Canadian Economy Act, designed in part to speed up the approval process of major infrastructure projects, a goal similar to Ontario's Bill 5. One line in the text of Bill 5 says its purpose is making Ontario "the best place in the G7 to invest, create jobs and do business." Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade Minister Vic Fedeli, whose chief role is attracting companies to the province, says investors around the world are hoarding capital in hopes of some economic certainty. Will Bill 5 attract investment? "That capital that's building up needs to unleash, and we want them to know that when they come to Ontario, it can be unleashed very quickly here," Fedeli said at the news conference alongside Ford and Lecce. Having Bill 5 powers on the books means Ontario could try to entice investors to set up shop in a special economic zone, but officials won't say whether that incentive is now being dangled at any particular companies. More questions remain on how exactly the government will use other powers it obtained through Bill 5, such as the power to ignore the independent scientific committee that determines whether a species is endangered or threatened in Ontario. You can expect a backlash from conservation groups whenever the government uses that power, for instance by scrapping measures that would protect the habitat of a species at risk. What's unknown is when, where and with what species the government will take such a step. Another 'watch this space' related to Bill 5: what happens with the expansion of a landfill on the edge of the southwestern Ontario town of Dresden, which the legislation exempts from having to go through a comprehensive environmental assessment. Local residents say they're not giving up their efforts to halt the project, while the company behind is welcoming the opportunity of "moving forward with our plan."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Musk gets it right — The big beautiful budget bill is a bust
For the first time in a long time, we find ourselves in agreement with Elon Musk, the drug-addled former DOGE commissar who last week left the federal government and now calls President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' budget a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk's concerns are not the bill's slashing of important programs, but its bloat, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would add a staggering $2.4 trillion to the deficit. He might have arrived at the right answer through the wrong process, but ultimately we can still welcome his opposition. Ditto to the ultra-conservative legislators whose worries are not the fact that the budget will massively reduce critical services for their own constituents, condemning a chunk of them to needless suffering and death — a consequence that Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst infamously scoffed at in a recent town hall — but that it spends too much. Fine, if they want to oppose the bill on that grounds, we'll take it. At the end of the day, there's something for everyone to dislike here in a bill that neither saves money — busy as it is with enormous giveaways to the rich, even as it slashes funding for programs ranging from housing assistance to scientific research — nor advance any cogent vision for the future of the country. Unfortunately, many voters treat this annual congressional budget fight as some distant sideshow that isn't worth their attention, but we hope that people, those that consider themselves apolitical or don't read the news much, realize that the consequences of this legislation absolutely will touch them, just as they'll touch everybody in the country. Let's just take some of the discretionary funding as an example: You do not have to personally receive Section 8 or Medicare for the cutting to impact you. You will ultimately pay for worse health outcomes overall, as newly uninsured people end up in emergency rooms. You'll pay for those who have lost their housing to end up in shelters. One day, it might even be you. You might not immediately see the effects of slashing funding to research on everything from agriculture to therapeutics, but it will affect your food and your health in long-term and unpredictable ways. All of this in service to no real objective other than taking apart the federal government from within. As we have often noted, there's no undo button; capacity that is destroyed cannot just be instantly rebuilt once we realize the grave consequences of those decisions. We are now at the moment when these consequences can and must be avoided. We hope that Democrats will stand united in using all procedural and political tools to combat this mess of a bill, and that some of their colleagues across the aisle will understand that they are headed towards a disaster that their constituents won't soon forget or forgive. Many of them are terrified that opposition will result in attacks from Trump and the threat of well-funded primaries by the same moneyed interests that stand the most to gain. Yet they should be as or more concerned about the impact against the people that they have pledged to represent, and how those people will react once the fullness of the bill's destruction becomes clear. It's time to have a spine. _____
