Discussing MP pay
Since the 2010 expenses scandal, MPs haven’t decided their own pay – that job now falls to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), a watchdog that just held a citizens’ forum to hear what people think about it.
How did the citizens’ forum go?
Opinion shifted a lot once people were given all the background on how the system works. Before the forum, 65% of members thought MPs were paid too much – but after deliberation, 67% said the pay is about right. The change reflected a deeper understanding of the workload, long hours and responsibilities MPs face, from constituency casework to late sittings in Westminster. But participants also agreed that while pay should reflect the demands of the job, it must stay grounded in the financial realities facing ordinary working people.
Since the forum, IPSA said it plans to change its process by giving the public more opportunities to learn about and help shape how MPs’ pay is decided in future. You can have your own say by filling out this online survey.
A bit of context.
MPs’ salaries aren’t decided by Parliament itself but by IPSA, a body set up to remove politics from the process. As of April 2025, the basic annual salary for a backbench MP rose 2.8% to £93,904. Those with extra responsibilities – such as ministers or committee chairs – receive additional pay. IPSA reviews salaries each year and adjusts them in line with changes in public sector earnings. It’s not a small job as all pay, expenses and staffing budgets come from the public purse.
Are there any critics still?
Yes – MP pay does continue to draw debate. When IPSA announced a 5.5% pay rise last year, some said it was tone-deaf amid the rising cost of living. Expense claims also face scrutiny, with spending on travel or office costs sometimes questioned by the public. IPSA has recently adopted a “principles-based” approach for these costs, which encourages MPs to judge whether claims should be made based on a set of guiding values.
The takeaway.
Public opinion on MP pay is often divided, but the citizens’ forum suggests that when people see how the system works, many find it broadly fair – as long as it reflects the realities facing voters and remains transparent.