Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Debate between Adam Afriyie and Mark Harper(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I will. In summary, the recommendations that trespass on IPSA’s independence are recommendations 2, 3, and 17(c). It is worth drawing the House’s attention to one other thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) made it clear that they did not in any way want to trespass on IPSA’s independence, but however frustrating we find an independent regulator, we cannot give it instructions—
Mr Harper
Hang on. Let me finish this point and I will give way. Paragraph 204 of the report acknowledges that some of the Committee’s “recommendations require legislative changes” but also states that other recommendations do not require legislation
“but could be brought about in that way if IPSA does not act.”
The report also says that the Committee believes that legislation should be introduced to implement its recommendations if
“IPSA’s Board has not implemented”
them.
Mr Harper
I have said that I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention if I am allowed to finish my point.
We cannot have an independent regulator and expenses system, and then say that if it does not follow the views and advice that we give it, we will legislate to implement them. Those things are not compatible. In paragraph 205 of the report, the Committee states:
“We urge the Government and Parliament to have the courage to reform the system of payments…by implementing our recommendations.”
From the way I read that—I am happy to be put straight by hon. Members—it seems that there is a conflict between the recommendations in the report and an independent system. It says to IPSA, “If you don’t do them, we will legislate to do them anyway,” which trespasses on the independent system.
Adam Afriyie
I shall be polite in this intervention, but frankly, my hon. Friend has had to work very hard to find a tiny little thing to object to, but it does not say what he is suggesting. Nowhere in the report does it say that we should not have independent regulation and nobody is saying that—the first recommendation is that independent regulation should be reinforced.
Paragraph 204 merely states the obvious. In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament ultimately has the power to do anything. It does not recommend that the Government make legislation. Only recommendations 2 and 3 recommend change. Paragraph 204 is not a recommendation but an observational statement. The Minister could dig out a sentence from any report to try to make a point that simply is not there.
Mr Harper
I want time to set out our recommendations, but the report states:
“Some of our recommendations require legislative changes; others are not dependent on legislation, but could be brought about in that way if IPSA does not act.”
If the Committee had stopped there, my hon. Friend’s point would have had some force, but it did not. The report goes on to say:
“We believe that step should be taken”—
meaning that legislation should be introduced—if IPSA
“has not implemented the recommendations of this report by 1 April 2012.”
Adam Afriyie
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The point is that this is not a recommendation of this report. It is merely an observation that members of the Committee have made. If the Minister goes through the 200 or 300 pages of the report, he will find plenty of other observations that people have made. This is not a recommendation, so the Minister is working a little bit too hard on an argument that does not really exist.
Mr Harper
It is one of the conclusions of the report. I will now move on to the three recommendations. Most of the recommendations in the report are for IPSA to consider. As Members on both sides of the House have said, many of the recommendations are very sensible and I hope that IPSA looks at them and takes them into account. In response to the report, IPSA has said that in some areas, it and the Members’ Expenses Committee are in agreement. Indeed, it has already introduced some of the suggestions that the Committee has made. IPSA has gone on to say, and has confirmed, that it will consider the recommendations of the Committee as it carries out its annual review of the scheme, which is very welcome.
Adam Afriyie
What is clear from the statement in the report, and clear overall, is that the purpose of creating the legislation was to improve the public standing of Parliament, but the primary duty of the body administering and regulating must be to support. The CSPL said that there cannot be any other primary purpose than to support Members in performing their functions. The Minister is slightly confusing the two issues—one is the purpose of creating legislation and the other is a primary duty provided to IPSA, rather than a statement that it must have regard to something, which it may or may not decide that it wishes to.
Mr Harper
I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would argue that if Members are to be able to carry out their parliamentary functions efficiently, there must be public confidence in them. If the public lose confidence in us and in this institution, we shall be in deep trouble.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman has put it very well. I cannot really add anything to what he has said.
A number of Members talked about costs and how efficiently IPSA did its job. I should emphasise that IPSA itself has a legal duty to be efficient and cost-effective. The National Audit Office’s report, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, noted that IPSA had significantly reduced its cost per claim, observing:
“This is impressive by the end of its first year of operation”.
The report went on to say, however, that
“IPSA is dealing with a much higher number of claims”
than were made in other UK legislatures in the UK,
“and should therefore be able to be the most efficient in the future.”
Given that, as I said, IPSA itself has a legal duty to be efficient and cost-effective, I think that it will be mindful of the thorough work done by the National Audit Office and the important recommendations that it has made.
I shall read out recommendation 3 so that Members can be clear about what it says:
“IPSA’s current administrative role should be carried out by a separate body, so that IPSA is not regulating itself, and the Act should be amended to permit this. The best arrangement would be for that separate body to be within the House of Commons Service, both because such a body would avoid imposing undue burdens on MPs and because it would benefit from the economies of scale of being part of a larger organisation in areas such as human resources and IT. Independent regulation by IPSA and transparency would ensure that it did not replicate the deficiencies of the old expenses system.”
I entirely accept that the Committee’s intention is not—here I paraphrase a media report—to go back to the old Fees Office, but it did not exactly go out of its way to make it difficult for the media to draw that conclusion, and I think it would be difficult for the House to agree to a recommendation that contains such a reference.
Another point requires clarification. IPSA’s administrative role falls into two categories: deciding whether claims should be allowed—what is called in the legislation “determining” claims—and paying those allowed claims. IPSA already has the power to contract out the payment of those claims, which is set out explicitly in the legislation. It can also contract out the payment of our salaries and the administration of our pensions, now that it is responsible for those. Under the legislation, however, it must retain direct control of the scheme for our expenses and decisions on the claims.
I believe that the deciding of claims should remain with IPSA, and the best way of explaining why I believe that is to quote paragraph 74 of the report, which quotes the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
“The CSPL noted in 2009 that both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales”—
the way in which the Scottish Parliament carried out its work was referred to in our debate in May, and has also been touched on today—
“had felt able to retain self-regulation by adding safeguards, but noted that ‘the difference is that neither ... has suffered a crisis of trust remotely comparable to that which has affected Westminster.’”
I think that, for that reason, the determination of our claims should remain with IPSA. The payment can already be contracted out if IPSA considers that to be more cost-effective and sensible. Other Members have said that we should not return to the old Fees Office approach, and I accept that the Committee did not mean to suggest that we should, although some may have interpreted its observations in that way.
Words mean what they say, and we must judge them on that basis. The House is being asked to approve these words in paragraph 17(c):
“In not more than six months’ time, the House should have the opportunity to consider the merits of the cost-benefit analysis and evaluation”—
as proposed in recommendation 17(b)—
“and to make a decision on whether there should or should not be a system of regional supplements instead of the existing travel and accommodation provisions.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said that what was meant was that the House should simply express a view—nothing stronger than that—but I am afraid that that is not what the report says. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) spotted that point and drew it to the attention of the House, and I think that it raises a fundamental issue.
Adam Afriyie
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but both I and other members of the Committee have made it absolutely clear that nothing in that recommendation suggests that IPSA would be bound by it. He will know that earlier in the week when we were discussing these matters, I tried to table an amendment to change the motion to make that clear, but it was firmly turned down. I can only suspect that the aim is to engineer a difference. Furthermore, primary legislation would be required to enable this place to force IPSA to do anything, and that is not what the recommendation suggests. I realise that the Minister will persist in his noble attempt to make this a bigger point than it is, and I respect that, but I think that we need to be clear about it.
Mr Harper
I know that my hon. Friend has set out clearly what he intended by the report, but his motion asks the House to approve the words in the recommendation, and those words mean what they mean—they ask the House “to make a decision”. Although he said that only primary legislation could bind the House, his Committee wrote, in paragraph 204, that if IPSA did not implement the recommendations, primary legislation should be used. The Committee has set out its view clearly. It might not have meant to say that, but it did say it.
Adam Afriyie
I will leave the Minister alone from hereon in because the point has been well made. Let us be clear: in paragraph 204 the Committee merely states, “We believe”. It is not a recommendation. He is working hard and doing a good job at creating the sense that this is legislation that is going through when it clearly is not. I commend him on his efforts, therefore, but the House should be clear on that point.
Mr Harper
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that we have explained the matter enough to the House. I have set out my view of what the Committee report states, and he has set out his. The House will be asked shortly to take a view on that, and I am happy for it to do so.
The creation of IPSA was an essential step in cleaning up politics by bringing to an end the discredited system of self-regulation. IPSA has handled expenses for some time now, and the House recently resolved to commence IPSA’s powers to determine our pay and pensions. Those powers had been on the statute book since the previous Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House commenced those powers after consulting Members from across the House. I mention that because the Leader of the House said, in moving that motion, that under the relevant legislation MPs would not vote on their pay again, and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), confirmed that the principle of independent determination was right. During those debates, several Members on both sides of the House were very firm in their view that the House should never again vote on our pay, pensions or expenses, and I think that recommendation 17(c) is incompatible with that, which is why the Government cannot accept it.
Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Debate between Adam Afriyie and Mark Harper(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing the debate and on his revised motion, which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said he can support, and which the Government can also support. Setting up a Committee to carry out post-legislative reviews to see how legislation actually takes effect is something that we are always being urged to do in the House, and it is welcome. It will provide Members with the opportunity to put forward facts and the Committee with the opportunity to take evidence and then to come back to the House with its recommendations for consideration. I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and measured speech, which was referred to by Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend’s motion is very sensible in focusing on the important things—value for money, accountability and public confidence. It also refers to the need to ensure
“that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
I want him to clarify one part of his speech because I am not sure that I heard it correctly. I think he said that 92% of Members do not claim for things for which they are legitimately allowed to claim, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. I have not seen that data published, and I would be grateful if he could provide some detail.
Adam Afriyie
I certainly will. This is based on the evidence that I have received and that the 1922 committee demonstrated some time ago—that is, that 92% of hon. Members are not claiming for all the categories for which they are entitled to claim. That would need to be examined; I make no judgment on it right now.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that, which is very helpful.
As my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, several things have happened since we last debated IPSA in December. At that time, IPSA had not carried out its review of the scheme, and many Members took the opportunity of that debate to put on record their specific concerns not only about the operation of the scheme but its rules. One or two Members have done that today, but in December the comments were much more focused on individual circumstances. IPSA has listened to some of those concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it recognised when it set up the scheme that it did not get everything right in terms of its rules and how it operated. To be fair, it has acknowledged that and put some of those things right, particularly as regards enabling us to do our jobs properly. The Government, and all Members, are concerned about ensuring that the system helps rather than hinders.
As the right hon. Members for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and for Leeds Central said, it is important that we have an independent body that oversees the expenses system and how it operates. We must also have a transparent system. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, it is the sunlight of transparency that helps to ensure that it works properly.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is talking about the Brandeis doctrine; Brandeis was a Supreme Court judge in the early 1900s. The review will also need to look at what subsequent academics have said about this. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, but it is conditional on the information that is provided being comparable and on it being disaggregated, so that not only grouped claims or information are published. It is also conditional on the information being standardised, and any review will need to look into those issues.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a good opportunity to leap forward to a point I was going to make later, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he talked about the publication of data. I know that it can be uncomfortable for hon. Members when information is published, but we are going to have to get used to it, and there is no going back.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a debate to be had, and these are matters that IPSA can think about. There are ways of publishing information that make it comparable and deal with the league table problem, but also make it very matter of fact and not very interesting to the press. There is an argument that if we publish the information in real time as we go along, and do not save it up and publish it in lumps—the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—it becomes normal, matter-of-fact, routine business that is not of interest to the media. I think it is fair to say that it has become much less interesting to the national media; we do not tend to see the front page stories any more. I know, however, that individual hon. Members often have to deal with local newspaper stories where their papers drill down into particular claims that, in isolation, take a fair degree of explanation but are perfectly reasonable claims for carrying out their work.
Adam Afriyie
I conducted a review of regional and local newspaper publications. The evidence is pretty conclusive. The bimonthly publication we looked at had about 28 million readers. We found that 97% of local newspaper stories were negative towards MPs, and 63% of the stories made unfair or misleading comparisons about MPs and their claims. A lot of this was generated by the way in which the information was being provided to the media under the current scheme. Again, that is something we will look at.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is an opportunity to acknowledge that, as other Members have said, he has done a lot of analytical work. Depending on what the House decides about who serves on the Committee, I am sure that his research will be of great help as it carries out its work.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Debate between Adam Afriyie and Mark Harper(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
In my view, it is a question not just of the number of pages, but of the substance of the issues involved. My hon. Friend will note that the Bill also contains a number of schedules, and, given that I have written to him and other Members today, he will know how we propose to deal with the combination amendment. Complicated technical issues occupying many pages may not raise significant issues, while significant issues requiring considerable debate may not occupy many pages. I do not think that the Committee should take a simple page-count approach.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a great presentation. The coalition agreement, to which most of us agreed and of which most of us are very supportive, contained a commitment to a referendum on alternative voting. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the date of the referendum was not included in the agreement, and therefore need not necessarily be part of this process?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that he finds my argument compelling, and I am sure that he will support the programme motion if Members feel the need to put it to a vote and test the opinion of the Committee.
It is true that the coalition agreement committed both coalition parties in the Government to supporting a referendum on the voting system, and the Government subsequently decided that 5 May next year was the right date. The House has already endorsed the principle of the Bill, and later this afternoon we will conduct a line-by-line scrutiny of it. I will be asking Members on both sides of the Committee to endorse the date, although I will expect support only from Members on this side.