LONDON
55. One other issue has been mentioned to us but
does not form part of the matters referred directly to us. The
SSRB reported "We heard from a number of MPs who provided
evidence to show that the London Supplement has not kept up with
comparable allowances for living and working in London. PwC's
research supports this view; their findings show that most other
public sector employees in comparable roles in London receive
between £3,000 and £4,000. We believe that the London
Supplement should be increased to reflect the extra living costs
found in London and therefore recommend that the London Supplement
be increased to £3,500 and henceforth be increased in line
with the Public Sector Average Earnings Index (ONS series LNNE)
rather than the whole economy Average Earnings Index, since as
explained in Chapter 3, we believe public sector comparators are
more appropriate for MPs."[24]
56. This is one recommendation from the SSRB which
the Government neither put before the House for decision on 24
January nor sought to be referred for consideration by this Committee.
Some Members have drawn the Committee's attention to the financial
position of MPs representing constituencies in outer or inner
London. In considering other aspects of our root and branch review
we will bear in mind the position of London MPs and await specific
proposals for addressing them. The Government seems to regard
the London Supplement as pay and we assume that London Members
will also make representations to the Baker review on a new pay
mechanism. We will take into account the London dimension when
considering the other aspects of this review.
24 para 5.59. Back
| 
