DC Debate: Hike in salaries for members of Parliament, legislators

Base hikes on performance

Pay revision brings happiness but for the fact that it would make us  pay more by way of taxes. What is given to us by the government from one hand is taken back by the other hand. However, when the government hikes salaries of legislators, they plan to see that the increase is not upset by income tax. The language used would be such that the  increase is out of the purview of IT rules. Allowances do not appear like “income”. Vehicle allowance, constituency allowance etc are  therefore “no-tax income” offered to the legislators/parliamentarians.  

The Delhi government proposed a 400 per cent increase in salaries of legislators while the Union Government is contemplating to double what Parliament members get now. If the Delhi increase is implemented, MLA will get far more than MPs.

Association for Democratic Reforms has, in an analysis of the  background of MPs, revealed that 82 per cent of the new MPs have assets worth over Rs 1 crore each, making the 16th Lok Sabha the  richest in its history, as against the 58 per cent in 2009 and 30 per cent in 2004. whereas the corresponding  percentage in 2009  and 2004 were 30 and 24 per cent respectively. When more than 400 MPs are crorepathis, do they need an increase in their salary? It is reasonable to assume that most of the MPs spent crores of rupees to secure party ticket and dozens of crores more to get elected. Each elected person commits perjury by filing false reports of the money he  or she spent, by showing much less than what was actually spent, but goes scot-free. For them, an increase in salary does not make any impact. On the other side, there are parties which have some committed  individuals as MPs, who share a percentage of their salary with the party. Hence, an increase helps these parties too indirectly.

The elected member’s responsibility towards the people should  matchingly increase with the increase in the burden on the people’s  exchequer. Being constitutional office-holders, MPs have an onerous  duty to do justice to their role. Instead, pandemonium is the order of the day, important bills are passed without a whisper of a debate and  days are wasted in din in house, be it in assembly or parliament.

The Andhra Pradesh legislative house has an ethics committee headed by  N. Yethiraja Rao, who commissioned drafting of rules of ethics with  contribution from intellectuals as well. As usual, no one reads or  follows this set of rules.  They can take home the increased salary and enjoy the  allowances, but they should also be truthful to the oath they have  taken. Each MP should consider himself a public authority and be amenable to respond to requests for information under the RTI Act.

Instead of paying huge sums for those who sign attendance register and then boycott the proceedings, as is happening now, the state should  introduce an ‘attendance and performance-based remuneration system for  them.

Madabhushi Sridhar, The writer is Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi.

MPs can serve without salary

At a time when everyone is constantly seeing how disruptive MPs could  get in Parliament and how the houses could not conduct business for  even half the allotted time, it looks strange that an attempt is on to  double their salaries and allowances. Just a few weeks ago, most MPs were bitter about the AAP government in Delhi hiking the salaries of its MLAs. Now, a parliamentary committee suggests that the monthly emoluments of MPs be doubled -- to Rs 2.50 lakh a month from the  present Rs 1.25 lakh. It was not long ago that MPs’ salary was raised  from less than Rs 70,000, which too was besides all the perks and  allowances.

An aspect that cannot escape attention is the winnability criteria the  parties adopt while nominating their candidates for elections to  Parliament, namely their resources base and “capacity to spend” to get elected. Thereby, most MPs who get elected are well-off; so well-off  that they would be glad to serve as MPs even without a salary.  Expenditure incurred to attend the Parliament sessions and the money  spent for their comforts are reimbursed. Initially, what they were  given was an honorarium which later turned into salary. Then a pension system came into being. After completion of a five-year tenure, MPs get a monthly pension. They also get Rs 5 crore a year as “MP  development fund” which is spent whichever way the MP wants. This fund too was doubled twice -- from one crore to two, and then to five -- despite a public outcry.

An analysis of MPs’ own wealth declaration each time they file their  nomination papers before the EC would show how the assets of MPs have increased from one election to another. A CMS analysis of MPs’ participation in Parliament debates and  committees some time ago brought to light the fact that more than one-third of the MPs were involved in the “conflict of interest” tangle. Following this, a Register was introduced in Rajya Sabha where  MPs were called upon to make statements in writing. Not many have done it. The Lok Sabha could not even come up with a register. There is no instance of the Committee on Ethics in Parliament ever taking up any case involving a “conflict of interest” to its logical end.

The argument that if MPs have to take their job seriously, they need  be compensated adequately, and that such a raise in salary would  prevent corruption, is farfetched. A CMS estimate a few years ago was that elected members end up making several times more money during their tenure than what they spent to get elected. How can MPs justify a sharp increase in their salary when they are  seen as part of the corrupt system? Note that the Lok Sabha Speaker had to observe in her  concluding remarks in the Winter Session last week that some MPs are serving vested interests. That she was made to expunge her own remarks  does not necessarily mean there are two opinions on what she stated.

Dr N. Bhaskara Rao, The writer is Chairman, Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi.