Last updated 13:21, Friday, 04 July 2008

LASt night MPs voted for the final time to set their own pay increases. THey bowed to government demands for restraint and warded themselves a 2.25 per cent pay rise forn this year.
But they also voted by 172 to 144 to keep the so-called Joh Lewis list, which allows them to use taxpayers' money to buy furniture and household goods for second homes. The Evening Mail's Westminster correspondent BILL JACOBS spoke to our local MPs before the vote to find out what they think about their pay and expenses.

• View more pictures...

JOHN HUTTONecretary of State for Business, Enterprise and ReguDominic Lipinskilatory Reform John Hutton speaks at the government's Low Carbon Economy Summit, at the Tate Modern, London. PRESS ASSOCIATION photo. Picture Date: Thursday June 26, 2008. The Prime Minister and Mr Hutton outlined a national energy blueprint designed to cut carbon emissions and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. As part of the radical £100 billion blueprint, thousands of new wind turbines could be built across the UK over the coming decade. See PA story INDUSTRY Energy. Photo credit should read: Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire

JOHN Hutton, Jamie Reed and Tim Farron all believe control of what they earn and how much they can claim in allowances should be put in the hands of an independent body.

Barrow and Furness MP and Business Secretary John Hutton, and his West Cumbria Labour colleague Jamie Reed, gritted their teeth and voted for the lowest increase proposed for their £61,820 annual salary of 2.3 per cent (£1,421.86) and backed tighter controls on their expenses and allowances in the wake of the Derek Conway affair.

Mr Hutton has already declined to take the recommended 1.5 per cent increase on his £76,904 Cabinet salary, on top of his MPs pay in line with Ministerial colleagues. It would have been worth £1,150 a year.

But South Lakes Liberal Democrat Mr Farron stayed away, choosing to be in his Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency instead.

The MPs present at Westminster debated proposals put forward in two separate reports aimed at making the process fairer and more open.

The Baker Review on pay recommended cutting MPs out of the process altogether for deciding what they earn, the option favoured by the government.

The Members Estimates Committee recommended a shake-up of the expenses and allowances system which would include tighter checks on expenditure and spot checks on MPs claims.

One of the all-party group’s members, Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell, declared: “The days of the gentlemen’s club in the House of Commons are over.”

Copeland MP Mr Reed said: “I have not, unlike many MPs, sought to influence the Parliamentary authorities’ conclusions in any way. I have made no verbal or written contributions to the process.

“I believe it is fundamentally wrong for MPs to decide upon their own pay.

“In principle, I would have liked to abstain from the vote last night, however, in practice I had to vote to ensure that the lowest recommendation is passed by the House of Commons in order to stop the higher recommendations being approved.

“This was the course of action I took last time and I hope that this is the last time I am ever asked to vote on any issue of remuneration for MPs – it’s simply wrong.

“Nurses, police, teachers, carers for the elderly and so many more people who I represent cannot set their own pay and conditions. The fact that MPs can only further increases the distance between politicians and the public and this is corrosive for us all.

“If Parliament is to shed its sadly well deserved image as a sheltered gentlemen’s club then all MPs of all parties would do well to recognise the economic realities being faced by hard working families and the fundamentally immoral practice of public servants setting their own pay, terms and conditions.

“The job of a Member of Parliament is a vocation, sadly, too many MPs see it as a vacation.”

A spokesman for Mr Hutton’s office said: “John has always been of the view that it is inappropriate for Members of Parliament to vote on their own pay and therefore took the opportunity to support the proposals that the matter be taken out of their hands in future.

“He also voted for the lowest proposed increase, 2.3 per cent, and he will not be accepting any increase in his Cabinet Ministerial salary.”

Mr Farron said: “The very fact that we as MPs get to vote on how much we get paid is a horrible anomaly.

“None of my constituents have a hand in the decision of how much they get paid, so I fail to see why I should. The appearance that this conveys just brings MPs further into disrepute and further damages the relationship between us and the public – a relationship that is absolutely crucial.

“It is slightly frustrating that all the focus has been on pay when in actual fact the vast majority of the money in question actually goes towards enabling us to do our jobs better. The allowance pays for our staff and our offices, who do so much on behalf of my constituents, from solving immigration crises to working to help save hospital services and local post offices.

“The issue that has caused so much consternation is that of the living allowance for those MPs based outside London. It would appear that a very small number of Members have abused this allowance, and their behaviour has done considerable damage to the reputation of Parliament.

“The proposals will seek to restrict how these allowances are used and will hopefully prevent abuse of the system in future.

“Repairing and maintaining the bond of trust between MPs and constituents is vital and I hope the changes go some way to doing so. I hope this is the last time MPs will be allowed to vote on their own pay and allowances.”