Parliamentary Pay and Perks – Matters Arising (10-04-2013)
The subject of MPs’ pay and other
benefits is a topic of hot public interest in all democracies. In the UK, the MPs
expenses scandal which rocked Westminster in 2009 is too well known to recount
in full but at the core of that trouble was public outrage at expenses claimed
by members of the British Parliament, especially for accommodation costs
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member’s
parliamentary duties”. The scandal led to some members from both the House of
Commons and the House of Lords going to prison and several resigning or being
made to pay back monies illegally collected. It has generally been agreed that
the scandal, which led to the 2005 Parliament being described as “rotten” led
to a crisis of confidence for Parliament and politics as a whole.
In Ghana, MPs’ pay and allowances has
taken centre stage lately and all indications are that the issue is not going
away any time soon. No one has suggested that MPs in Ghana have done anything
illegal but the immediate reason for the brouhaha was the disclosure that MPs
have received (shock and horror) IN FULL their ex-gratia allowance
totaling more than 40 million cedis at a time when the government is struggling
to settle pay-arrears for the likes of teachers and doctors. Naturally, MPs
defended their right to the money arguing that since some part of the amount
paid was deducted to defray previous loans, the money could not be said to have
been paid in full.
The debate was pitched as a
contention between morality and value-for-money. It is both and we need to have
a proper adult and non-partisan discussion about it. There are a number of
questions that need to be answered; principal among them being whether the
payment of the ex-gratia in addition to a basic monthly pay of 7,200 Ghana cedis
is warranted. At the very least, we need to know what the money is intended for
and whether that purpose is best served by this method of payment. The same can
be said of the build-up of other expenses such as for accommodation and
relocation.
Ex-gratia is Latin for “out of
goodwill” and ex-gratia payment is defined by the online Business Dictionary as
“a sum of money paid when there was no obligation or liability to pay it. For
example, a lump sum payment over and above the pension benefits of a retiring employee”.
In other words, an ex-gratia payment at all times is a privilege and not a
right even when it has been conferred by the Constitution because it is money
the recipient has NOT worked for or
earned in any way. We can understand why
giving this “free bonto” money to MPs would have looked like the right thing to
do in the transitional climate of 1992 when the present Constitution came into
operation. Is it still the right thing to do? There has to be a reason why such
ex-gratia payment to MPs can be justified in 2013 when public salaries and
other payments have been restructured and rationalised in the years since the first
Parliament.
Let us assume that the ex-gratia is a
kind of end-of-service benefit paid to MPs. Why should it be paid automatically
to all members including those who are still in service? Unless I have
completely misunderstood the situation, every four years, ALL members of
Parliament are given an ex-gratia payment that can best be justified as an
end-of-service benefit. Would it not be more morally justified if that payment
was made only to MPs who are retiring from Parliament?
Another point: all MPs receive a
housing allowance said to be 50,000 Ghana cedis to help them find a place to
live. This makes sense because the majority of MPs come from outside the
nation’s capital where Parliament sits but since the allowance is not means-tested
the same sum is paid to all MPs irrespective of their personal circumstances
and needs. Thus, whether the MP is a youthful recent graduate or a serial
polygamist who is the father of many children, they receive the same amount for
accommodation. Question: is this fair and equitable?
Question: Do Accra MPs receive this
allowance too? The question of MPs “second homes” was one of the most
contentious issues in the UK scandal because it was claimed by MPs who were not
entitled to it and grossly abused by some who did. Should MPs who come from
Accra also receive a housing allowance to find accommodation in Accra? We have
to assume that MPs were not homeless before getting elected into Parliament or
must they necessarily have to change their living quarters just because they
have become MPs?
And another question: do ALL MPs
receive in the ex-gratia package an amount described as “re-settlement
allowance”? What does the resettlement mean? These people are neither refugees
nor internally-displaced persons; they are honourable men and women who after
the privilege of serving their constituents, are presumably going back home. So how are they going to be
“resettled”? This is an important point because in the course of their tenure
in the House, MPs are expected to visit and interact with their constituents on
a regular basis. If they do this as expected, why are they being “resettled” in
a place they have never truly departed from? Can these “resettlements” be legal
where there is no resettling to do?
Members of Parliament are public
servants and we must ensure that they do not become a class apart from the
people they are representing. No one begrudges MPs the special privileges they
receive in the course of their work but there has to be a democratic principle
implicit in the social contract that enjoins them to understand the pressures
to which their constituents are subjected in their lives.
Here is an example: Why can’t MPs
arrange their own mortgage just as other people do? Indeed, even the ability to
arrange a mortgage in Ghana is a rare privilege given to a small minority of
the people. Is it too much for MPs to be allowed to go to a bank to arrange
their own mortgage, or will the privilege of a cool GHC50,000 housing allowance
be granted to all public servants?
The above are among several questions
that we must examine if public confidence in Parliament and politicians in
general is not to be completed eroded. However, in the course of the recent public
upheaval, several MPs were heard in the media displaying considerable annoyance
that “We the People” dare raise these issues. One MP was particularly strident
in denouncing the Public Affairs Division of the Parliamentary Service for not
“explaining” to the public that the ex-gratia went into paying loans contracted
by MPs already. She appeared to fall into the category of people who seemed to
think that questions asked about MPs pay and perks are about procedure and
process. In fact, they are about morality, equity and value-for-money.
In the course of her spirited
defence, the MP said that, among other things, she and her colleagues had
borrowed money to finance their election campaigns and therefore needed the ex-gratia
to repay. This raises a serious political point: who must finance political campaigns
in Ghana? The MP was saying in effect that the tax payer funds or must funds
MPs re-election campaigns; the question is, who finances the campaigns of the
MPs opponents who have no ex gratia to fall back on?
If we follow the logic of her
argument, the ex-gratia, in effect, undermines democracy by ensuring that
incumbent MPs have an unfair advantage over others who might want to challenge
them for their seats. This means that only government ministers and others
wealthy people who also have access to serious money can challenge sitting MPs
for their seats. This is the surest way to morph democracy into oligarchy.
The tone of the discussion thus far
does not betray a bitter or envious edge; perhaps it is a good idea to pay free
money to our MPs as often as we like but given our needs and scale of priorities
is it the best way to spend 40 million Ghana cedis every four years? That is
the question.
kgapenteng.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment