Mo' money, mo' problems

They asked the audience....then completely ignored them.

Last year, the Independent Remuneration Panel for the National Assembly proposed a change in AMs' and ministers' pay (The £64,000 Question).

Although all AMs would see a reduction to their pension contributions, and ministers would effectively see a real terms pay package cut, the headline-grabber was a proposal to raise AMs' salary from just over £54,000 per year to £64,000 per year – an inflation-busting increase of around 18%.

The disapproval was palpable, and the Panel were "inundated" with a record number of responses from the public to the consultation. The results of that consultation, and a draft final decision, were published last week on a low-key Friday morning (pdf), meaning there was little opportunity for AMs to react to the "good news".

The draft decision includes :

• As mentioned, an increase in AMs' basic annual salary from £54,343 to £64,000 from 2016-17.
• The First Minister will see their salary rise from £135,260 to £140,000 but see a larger drop in pension contributions. There's a similar arrangement for ministers, deputy ministers and the Counsel General.
• The Presiding Officer's salary should rise from £96,339 to £105,000, while the Deputy Presiding Officer's salary should rise from £80,775 to £85,000.
• Assembly Commissioner and Committee chair salaries should rise from £66,810 to £77,000.
• Opposition party leaders should get a proportional salary boost based on the number of members in each group.
• AM pension contributions will fall to the equivalent of 7.2% of their annual salaries.
• Second home allowances and mileage expenses will be retained as is. However, overnight hotel expenses for AMs living in the "inner area" (south east Wales) will only be reimbursed in "exceptional circumstances".
• AMs will be able to recruit a "senior adviser" as one of their three full-time employees. Previously, only party groups could hire them (salary £31-38k).

One key proposal, which is yet to be properly consulted on, relates to core funding for party groups – money used for backroom functions and administration.

At the moment, to be recognised as an official party group (in terms of funding and participating in Assembly business), a group needs a minimum of 3 AMs. The Panel propose to remove this link with regard funding, as it penalises Independents and (future) party groups that only have one or two AMs. The total pot available will be capped at £900,000, so distribution of funds will depend on the number of party groups and the number of AMs in each group.

Based on the Assembly's current composition, opposition parties would be provided with core funding of £50,000 and an additional £20,000 per AM. The governing party will be provided with a single payment of £150,000.

This is probably being done with 2016 in mind as current polling hints that six parties could be represented in the Senedd, some with fewer than 3 AMs – possibly including the Lib Dems.

The additional costs of the proposals are estimated to be £835,000 per year.

The Reaction

The Panel published the consultation responses in full.

Party Groups and "Key Stakeholders" (pdf)

• Welsh Labour – Welcome both the recognition that AM roles are on a par with members of the Scottish Parliament and the changes relating to ministers. They don't accept the changes with regard opposition leaders, believing only the leader of the largest opposition party should be recognised with a salary bump. They support indexing AMs' salaries to the Welsh average, but reject the salary increase.
• Welsh Lib Dems – Don't believe it's appropriate for AMs to receive a salary increase while public sector wages are frozen or increases capped at 1%. Any increase should be within these limits. An increase should only come when it's affordable and when the economy is "buoyant enough" to enable wage increases for everyone.
• Nick Ramsay AM (Con, Monmouth), presumably on behalf of the Welsh Conservative group – Said it was desirable for any changes to AMs' salaries commands public support "from the outset". He suggests the proposed salary increases to office holders (Commissioners etc.) should instead be redistributed to give all AMs a salary boost.

Plaid Cymru didn't officially respond, though when the proposals were first announced they made their "displeasure" known.

So, as Borthlas said earlier today, none of the parties rule out the principle of a pay rise, they're just sensitive about doing it during austerity.

BMA Cymru would only accept recommendations that are in line with the public sector in general. Diverse Cymru said that while the research justifying the salary increase was sound enough, it would "outrage the public".

UNISON say they have "confidence in the process undertaken" to reach the £64,000 figure, but politicians are not in a unique position with regards long hours and job insecurity. It would therefore be "unreasonable" for AMs to receive a pay increase that outstrips the public sector workforce.

E-mails aka. The Great Unwashed/Public (link)

Although I'm sure AMs have heard worse during their time in office, they should probably give the e-mails a miss.

Some responses were well-reasoned – like a proposal from "B" to index AMs salary to the responsibilities of MPs and MSPs, which would raise AM salaries to around £58,000. A popular proposal was to index salary increases to NHS workers. Some, like "C", simply believe AMs should "show leadership" and reject the proposal outright.

Here's a selection of the rest of the responses :

• AMs are "elite penpushers" who "need to get real".
• "....an 18% rise is a morally wrong message to give to a nation which has large areas of depravation (sic)...."
• The decision is "absolutely disgusting...would they (AMs) go on the streets of Wales litter picking, clearing dog mess (and human), sweeping, clearing drains, emptying rubbish bins etc. "
• "....it is wholly inappropriate for AMs to even consider anything more than a cost of living increase. To do so will bring the Assembly into disrepute."
• "AMs are already excessively overpaid, most of them would be lucky to get an ordinary job in normal society....For a bunch of useless individuals they are doing remarkably well to be paid as much as they are!....Every year we pay more and every year things go further downhill!"
• "I have no reason to believe that your consultation differs to the one that was put forward by the IPSA justifying MP's equally scandalous 9.26% pay rise, which I have read. Therefore I will not waste my time reading the remuneration boards (sic)."
• "Where do you the board get this ludicrous idea in the first place??? You must be out of your minds! This is truly a disgusting slap in the face for the people of Wales. You should be ashamed of yourselves. "
• "Any AM who is not motivated by the already generous salary in excess of £50k, which is well above the average salary for Welsh public sector workers, is not fit for the role."
• "Ridiculous. No increase at all for this incompetent bunch of fools."
• "If the economy and services within Wales worked well and provided all that they promise to do so, then I like many people would be behind awarding pay rises, however as a member of the Welsh public I can see no evidence of an Assembly that is achieving what it set out to do. "
• "....it seems to me that the old saying is, we are alright jack stuff the rest of you. You all choose to do that job, try living on a postman/postwoman's wage."

....and the Panel presses ahead with it anyway.

There was, as far as I can tell, one e-mail response to the consultation which outright supported a pay rise. One. Even those who supported the principle were cautious.

Many e-mails seem to place the blame on AMs too, while around a dozen e-mails were sent directly to the Welsh Government. I have to stress that AMs have nothing to do with this. The Panel is independent, set up so AMs wouldn't have to vote through their own pay and perks – which would be open to abuse.

AMs still have to live with any decisions though, and by the looks of it they'd better get used to the idea of receiving an incredibly unpopular pay hike.

The physical separation of responses from within "The Bay Bubble" and outside it hint that the public's views, even well-reasoned views like those from "B", are not taken seriously despite the Panel themselves saying there was a "record response". The Panel's chair, Sandy Blair, has since backtracked on that by saying he was disappointed with the number of responses. Is it any wonder?

The Panel have also given no explanation for why, in the face of such opposition, they've pressed ahead with a near unchanged version of the proposals, nor have they offered any rebuttal to the arguments against a pay rise.

They were blunt opinions that didn't add anything to the discussion, granted, but the Panel asked for those opinions in the first place.

As Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) said last week, the reaction from the public should've prompted an urgent re-think. The next time an AM whinges that people don't take part in public consultations or don't see the value of "engagement", they would do well to remember what's happened here - not that it's isolated to this case either.

The consultation on the draft determination closes on April 8^th....not that your views will make any difference.