Spads should fall within a pay hierarchy from the PM down

The prime minister of the United Kingdom, for example, earns £142,500.

It is absurd that such a position earns a much lower salary than the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (£247,000) or the Chief of the Defence Staff (£245,000).

The occupant of 10 Downing Street has a job of critical importance to the nation and should earn notably above the first minister of Northern Ireland (who arguably should get more than the current £120,000).

MPs should also be paid more than the £67,000 that they were until recently receiving or the £74,000 level to which the recent pay rise took their salary. GPs earn on average £100,000 a year, and MPs should be valued as highly by society.

MLAs also have a powerful case for a salary higher than their current £48,000. Stormont needs talented politicians, and while a salary of – say – £60,000 would still be below the level that many professionals expect, it would send a signal that the job is important. Expenses could be cut to fund such a rise – MLAs should not need major staff or office arrangements.

Another reform that should be made is to Special Advisers (Spads). They should earn less than ministers they advise (now £86,000) and there should be no more than one per minister (so four in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister OFMDFM, as proposed by Jim Allister MLA).

These changes, if they happened together, would result in a clearly demarcated hierarchy flowing from the prime minister down, in which people who have responsibility for making decisions earn more than the people who advise them.

Politicians or their advisers should not be as highly paid as privately employed professionals. People have every right to try to enrich themselves, but in the private sphere.

High holders of public office are entitled to respectable salaries, the levels of which are clearly explained, alongside transparent and carefully limited expenses.