FTAdviser.com

Advertising

Stefanie Ives' article prompted me to muse on the relative merits of say, a CII survey on the “professional standards” of MPs, conducted among IFAs, or even the electorate and I wonder how interesting the percentage results on this survey would read?

It is worth considering some relative facts about MPs, not least the size of the MP population, 646 “right honourable members” compared to the relative size of the IFA population in the UK of several thousands.

MPs are contractually bound to a 37.5-hour week. However the House of Commons only “sat” for a total of 21 weeks in 2007 and incidentally have only ever worked on four Saturdays since 1939. They get an 11-week paid summer holiday so in total they received taxpayer funded pay for 20 weeks in 2007 for doing exactly what?

So what do MPs do for their money in an era where over 60 per cent of new legislation originates in Brussels and not Westminster?

MPs were first salaried in 1911, earning £400 a year and this has risen to £61,820. Cabinet members earn £138,724 and the Prime Minister £189,994. That pay increase is a staggering 15,355 per cent in 96 years, that is an average pay increase of 160 per cent a year - all voted for by themselves co-incidentally - they enjoy a 1/40 defined benefit pension scheme with a 10 per cent employee contribution rate - a 6 per cent net cost to them - with the tax payer funding any potential “deficit” on any liabilities the scheme may have. They can also claim up to the following maximums for all of the following:

• Additional cost allowance: £22,110 a year.

• Incidental expenses provision: £20,440 a year.

• Staffing allowance: £87,276 a year.

• 40p a mile for car use up to 10,000 miles 25p per mile there after

• Other travel expenses such as, flights and taxi fares and even 20p a mile for using a bicycle. Does Mr Cameron claim this?

They can even claim up to £35,905 “winding-up allowance” for getting sacked by the electorate for not doing what they promised they would do, to get elected in the first place.

They can hold countless numbers of “outside interests” such as board membership of major corporations, and still claim they are free from “undue influence” or will not “lobby” on behalf of said companies - it was called moonlighting in my day. They can charge fees for appearances and public speaking or writing memoirs, never ever give a straight answer to even the simplest of questions, resolutely fail to take responsibility for their actions even where they have the direst of consequences, unlike an IFA, and then have the temerity to question the integrity and remuneration structure of countless thousands of hard working professional IFAs in this country.

Well I have decided its time for a career change. Who is going to give me their vote?

Andy Baxter, principal, Wealth Management, Darlington