Attempting to ward off criticism that parliamentarians fix their own salaries and award themselves hefty hikes, the government has finally decided to set up a separate pay commission to look into emoluments and allowances for lawmakers.
To be called the Emoluments Commission and set up by amending the MPs Salaries Act of 1954, the body will become a permanent mechanism that will determine the salaries, allowances as well as pension of MPs. The draft legislation, which the government is keen to bring in the second phase of the Budget session, is expected to come up for approval before the Cabinet on Thursday.
The commission is proposed to be headed by a ?person of eminence in public field? and will have four other commissioners from similar background to decide on how much remuneration MPs should be getting. The members will be decided by a panel headed by the Prime Minister, chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the leader of Opposition. The institutionalised mechanism will be set up every five years to amend the remuneration for parliamentarians based on inflationary trends.
Charges that MPs decide their own salaries may not be exaggerated, given that they only have themselves to amend the 1954 Salaries And Allowances Act every time they want a hike. Statistics show that the Act has been amended 26 times till now?in other words parliamentarians have awarded themselves pay increases as many times.
And there has never been any protest registered, given that the amendments have always been passed by a mere voice vote.
Currently, MPs get a monthly salary of Rs 16,000. However it is the allowances that make a MPs?s remuneration enviable. Besides a daily allowance of Rs 1,000, they get a constituency allowance of Rs 20,000. Perks like free housing, telephones, laptops, Rs 1 lakh advance for car loan, electricity and free rail and air travel make it almost lucrative. Former MPs get a pension of Rs 6,000 per month.
Parliamentarians, however, have argued that the remuneration is inadequate, considerating the huge expenses they have to incur. They contend that it is because of the low remuneration that controversies like the cash-for-query scandals have occurred.