Bob Russell
Main Page: Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat - Colchester)Department Debates - View all Bob Russell's debates with the Cabinet Office
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I want to put on record my appreciation of the front-line staff of IPSA, who have to work a system that is not fit for purpose. In addition to there being costs to Members of Parliament and their staff, the National Audit Office believes that in 38% of cases the cost of processing a claim is higher than the amount for which the claim is being made. Will my hon. Friend confirm that?
Adam Afriyie
That is a fascinating statistic. We had a session in which we looked in particular at value for money, and that message came through loud and clear. Anyone in the House with a background in business or in a medium-sized organisation that runs an expenses system will recognise that something needs to be looked at if the cost of processing a large minority of the claims is higher than the value of the claims themselves. Some of the recommendations are very much directed at helping IPSA to move to a system that is less expensive to operate and in which taxpayers’ resources are being spent as they would wish: on activities such as supporting democracy and ensuring that constituents are serviced, rather than supporting unnecessary bureaucracy.
Adam Afriyie
That is another point very well made. I hope that the direction of travel in the recommendations will precipitate such an outcome when IPSA reflects on them.
I draw everyone’s attention to the survey in annex 1, on page 66, which contains some telling statistics. We conducted a brief survey towards the end of the inquiry to ensure that we were picking up contemporary, rather than historical, points of view of Members of Parliament. There are some striking figures. For example, 81% of MPs do not believe that the board of IPSA has been effective in supporting MPs in conducting their duties. Even if the intention was to be supportive, it is quite telling that over 80% of MPs do not think that it is. Another fascinating statistic is that 93% of MPs are subsidising their work here. That is a contemporary figure from two or three weeks ago.
Bob Russell
Does my hon. Friend know of any other profession or occupation—perhaps the world of journalism? —where 93% of the work force are subsidising the work that they do?
Adam Afriyie
It is incredibly unlikely. As I say, 93% are subsidising their work to some degree—some, about one in 10, to the tune of over £10,000 a year. One of the main reasons cited, by 83% of MPs, is that they are trying to protect their reputation. The bi-monthly publication cycle allows for misleading comparisons. The report calls for more transparency—perhaps we could publish in real time. However, the misleading bi-monthly publication routine means that MPs are trying to protect their reputation, which is the thing most valuable to them. Let us not think that that is a selfish act; it is an act that works to protect our democracy. If individual MPs are constantly being lambasted in their local media for making legitimate claims but having false comparisons made, that undermines democracy overall and harms the reputation of Parliament. That is why one of our recommendations is that IPSA should become a lot more transparent in its publications.
We make a recommendation about annual publications. At the moment, it is incredibly difficult for the public to see what is going on. They have to print out one page and then another, and try to compare them. That does not work, so we recommend that the annual publication is searchable and easily accessible to the public so that they can make sensible comparisons from year to year, rather than misleading ones drawn from the bi-monthly publications.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
As a member of the Committee, I would like to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his patience in trying to reconcile the views of the Committee. On the point he is making, in addition to the separation of IPSA’s regulatory and administrative functions, was not another stark factor presented to the Committee the extraordinarily expensive way IPSA administered a relatively small number of transactions and the fact that many other organisations, whether inside the House of Commons or elsewhere, could do that for much better value for money for the taxpayer?
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) was incredibly helpful during the Committee’s deliberations, for which I thank him. We all have strong views on these matters, some of which will be very different, so I thank him in particular because we all moderated our views somewhat to look at the evidence and see where it pointed us. We came to a good conclusion on how the system can be become more efficient. I should also point out that there have been arguments from the press again, and unfortunately from elsewhere, suggesting that somehow the report wants the House to regain control of expenses. That is utter nonsense. There is nothing in the report that seeks to do that. If there is any lack of clarity, I am happy to tidy it up or answer any questions. All the recommendations, other than 2 and 3, are for IPSA. It has the power to accept or reject them. We hope that it will accept them, but it has the power. There is nothing in the report that alters the relationship. If anything, one or two of the recommendations seek to increase the distance between Parliament and the regulator and urge IPSA to be more transparent.
Adam Afriyie
Again, that is a perfect observation. In the survey that was conducted, MPs were asked on how many occasions in the last six months IPSA lost paperwork that they had submitted in support of a claim. Some 62% of MPs replied the IPSA had lost paperwork. In response to a question on the consistency of advice, the majority of MPs said that advice has been inconsistent. We updated the survey specifically to ensure that we were talking not about the history of the organisation and what happened when it was set up, but about the current reality for Members trying to get on with their work. What the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said is reflected in the information and evidence within the report.
I will focus on two recommendations for the moment before concluding my remarks. I just wanted to dispel many of the myths that have been knocking about.
We recommend that IPSA should move as far as possible to a system of direct payments. There are lots of reports in the media about MPs and whether they are pocketing money, but, as we know, certainly since the beginning of the new Parliament, that has not been the case. Even IPSA would agree, because it has robust systems, but the Committee says, “Why keep paying money to MPs, who then have to pay it to their member of staff who bought a toner cartridge three months earlier?” Many payments could be made directly to suppliers, so that the money does not go via MPs. They are not MPs’ expenses, they are the costs of running an office, and I cannot imagine that anyone in the country buys their own office furniture and then reclaims the costs.
Bob Russell
“Expenses” is the wrong word; those costs are allowances for us to do our job. My staff salaries are not my expenses.
Adam Afriyie
That point is reflected in recommendation 8, in which the Committee states that there should be a “clear distinction” between those costs that are commonly associated with an MP personally, and those costs that clearly relate to running an office and paying staff. They do not come anywhere near an MP; they are merely the cost of providing a service to the public.
Mr Raynsford
I agree wholeheartedly. We have a responsibility to speak out openly and properly about the failings of the existing system, while at the same time making clear our commitment to a framework of independently regulated expenses that guarantee transparency, probity and all the objectives that were rightly emphasised in the preparation of the 2009 legislation.
The report proposes exactly that. First, any fair-minded commentator reading the report will see that it clearly is not arguing for a return to the old discredited system of self-regulation; that is not anywhere in the report. It is utter nonsense for some media commentators to imply that that is the objective. Secondly, it is not a case of “greedy” MPs arguing for more money. As any fair-minded observer of the report will see, it focuses on ways in which savings can be made and argues that we should be operating a system that gives better value for money to the taxpayer. Indeed, as the report highlights, the criticisms have been overwhelmingly about the processes operated by IPSA, rather than the amounts of money involved. Thirdly, the report does not argue for flat-rate allowances, although it has been misrepresented as doing so. I will come back to that issue in a moment because it is controversial, but it is important to put on the record that it is not the Committee’s recommendation that there should be flat-rate allowances, other than those that already exist. There are flat-rate allowances in the existing system that apply to London MPs and those living in the area around outer London.
Bob Russell
I am sure the media have not deliberately gone out of their way to misrepresent the report and thus mislead readers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the TaxPayers Alliance had not read the report when it made its comments? Clearly, as has been pointed out, the report would not impose an additional cost on the public purse; in fact it talks about greater efficiency and saving money for the public purse. Perhaps those at the TaxPayers Alliance are the people who are at fault and not the national media.
Mr Raynsford
I note, but I cannot say I am persuaded by, the hon. Gentleman’s touching faith in the integrity and probity of journalists, not all of whose expense claims would survive the slightest degree of the scrutiny that they advocate in the case of MPs. However, I agree that there are some forces outside this place that are only too keen to rush to judgment. They do not make a proper considered appraisal of the evidence in the report, or weigh up the merits and arguments and debate those rationally, but rush into caricature and vitriolic attacks on MPs because they have an agenda, which I do not wish to elaborate on further today.
The report proposes, first, separation of the regulation of the expenses system, which should remain in independent hands, from the administration, which as we have heard repeatedly and saw in the evidence submitted to the Committee, could be handled in a far more cost-effective way. The report does not propose a return to the Fees Office but it does suggest having a cost-effective administrative body appointed to run the process of handling claims and making payments, subject to the independent regulator's overall remit. That kind of structure applies almost universally in comparable organisations. It does not require a return to administration in this House. It could be done entirely independently. The case for separating the regulatory function from the administrative function was made forcefully by a large number of extremely experienced people who gave evidence to our Committee, many of whom said that the present arrangement was indefensible and not cost-effective.
Secondly, the report recommends the extension of direct payments to cut down on bureaucracy and costs without any risk of MPs gaining a financial advantage. That must be common sense. The report also proposes more extensive central procurement of equipment and supplies to save public money—again, a recommendation that should command widespread support. It proposes the annual publication of claims, backed up by receipts that have been redacted to remove personal details. That of course goes far further than the current system, which does not involve the publication of receipts, so the suggestion that we are trying to get away from transparency in making that recommendation is curious.
The framework proposed in the report would be more transparent than the current arrangements. At the same time, it would reduce the scope for potentially misleading indications of MPs’ expenses, which is the product of bi-monthly publication. That can result in some MPs who have particular surges, peaks or troughs in expenditure looking as though, in any one set of published figures, they are spending much more than their neighbours. Therefore, a simple, more accurate and fully transparent annualised publication system, together with a move towards real-time publication, as is proposed, must make sense.
The report recommends strongly the clear separation of expenses, which are items such as travel, subsistence and accommodation costs, from office expenditure. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and many others have made the point that such expenditure, bizarrely and uniquely to Members of Parliament, is treated as an expense. Where else would the costs necessary to carry out one’s job, such as for one’s desk, staff, office supplies, printers and so forth, be treated as an expense? Those are not, in normal parlance, an expense, but necessary costs of carrying out our functions. They should be identified separately so that we no longer see the highly misleading figures that are produced by some journalists to imply that MPs benefit from expenses of £120,000 a year, when that is a reflection of the costs of running their office and of their staffing. Those costs should not be subsumed by, or confused with, expenses.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to end and add
“thanks the Members’ Expenses Committee for its First Report on the Operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, HC 1484; and refers it to IPSA to be considered as part of its Annual Review.”.
It is not often that I rise in the House as the villain of the piece, and that was certainly not my intention. If I have in any way shown a lack of courtesy towards my Committee Chairman, I want to apologise in front of the House. There is not another Member who is more courteous to other Members, and his chairmanship of the Members’ Expenses Committee was a model of courtesy. I apologise if my e-mail of this morning was slightly too late in arriving at his desk.
I want to make it clear that I signed up to the report and support it, and that I have been astounded by the vilification in the press of the modest proposals made in it. However, it is important to point out that there are recommendations in it that need to be taken seriously and taken forward. During the course of yesterday, it became increasingly apparent that there was a real likelihood that a vote would be called on today’s motion, and that it might be defeated.
Bob Russell
Would my hon. Friend like to inform the House whence that information came?
Guto Bebb
I am grateful. It came from various colleagues, and indeed from some Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who despite the fact that there is a one-line Whip are staying around today. That might indicate why I had my concerns.
The report is an important piece of work and contains proposals to better the situation. Crucially, and in contrast with the media comments on it, a large part of the Committee’s work examined not the unfairness of IPSA towards Members—we have spoken at length about that in the Chamber—but how it has discriminated against our staff. That issue has been ignored time and time again when we have discussed how IPSA operates. It has created real barriers to promotion for staff members, and they have found themselves worse off for child care. There are serious proposals on that in the report, which IPSA should take into account.
It is frankly astounding that IPSA has not formally spoken to any organisation responsible for our members of staff. There are recommendations in the report that it should be allowed to think carefully about and take forward. I would not want to end up with the report being rejected by the House, allowing IPSA to ignore its responsibility to consider those recommendations seriously.
Before becoming a Member of the House, I ran a small business for 17 years, so I believe in a pragmatic approach to what can be done. There are 19 recommendations in the report, and I stand by them, although I would say that we need to explain recommendation 3 in detail. I take full responsibility for the wording of it, because I was a member of the Committee, but it has allowed the media to attack us on the basis that we want to bring the expenses system back in-house. A Committee of Members came up with that wording, and I am as responsible as anybody else.
We need to consider carefully whether the administration and governance of the system can be split, and whether better value for money can be achieved by allowing IPSA to subcontract the work of administering it. The media’s conclusion from looking carefully at the wording of recommendation 3 has been unfortunate—I do not believe the conclusion that has been drawn was the intention behind the report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) have made perfectly clear, that was not the report’s purpose. If there were transcripts of our discussions in Committee, they would make that apparent.
Guto Bebb
I have attempted to explain my reasoning. I believe that there are several recommendations in the report that should be taken forward, but I have clearly stated my concern and suspicion that if the House divided on the motion, the report would be rejected. That would be a great shame.
Bob Russell
Pursuant to my previous point and the one made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am not sure whether the Committee had 12 members, but of the Members who were prevailed upon to sign the amendment, only one is in the Chamber. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) tell me who leaned on him to table the amendment? He had sufficient time to find people to sign the amendment, but no time to discuss it with the Chair of his Committee, which produced a report that he had previously approved.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I am grateful to be called at this stage of the debate, but it is worth saying at the start that because the report was published only on Monday, the Government have not had the opportunity formally to respond to the Committee and to set out our views. I thought it would be helpful for the debate and the House if I were able to do so at a relatively early stage of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) referred to the press coverage, but I can assure him that the Government are not responsible for that. We have said publicly that most of the recommendations of his report relate to the expenses scheme, and are therefore for IPSA to consider, and suggested that it might want to do so as part of its annual review. We have said that we will look carefully at the section of the report that is directed at the Government, that we are totally committed to an independent and transparent expenses system, and that we could not accept any recommendations that would be incompatible with that. I leave Members to judge, but I do not consider that to be particularly harsh. It is a perfectly calm and balanced response to the report.
Mr Harper
May I make a little progress, because I need to set out the Government’s concerns about the report? [Interruption.] I will come to that.
The problem is that the motion asks the House—I will come to the amendment in a minute—to approve all the recommendations in the report. It is perfectly true that the Committee’s report in itself has no effect, but Parliament and the House of Commons are being asked to approve every single recommendation. It is therefore necessary to look at what they are and at whether they are acceptable.
It would have been more helpful if the Government had had a little more time, but the motion was tabled for debate today. Between noon on Monday and today, we have had to study the report and the recommendations that are directed at the Government. Because I need to be able to set out our position to the House, we have had to take a view on them, and I will do so.
Bob Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is a Minister for whom I have the utmost respect, and I would hate his future prospects to be diminished in the eyes of the House if he aligned himself with the amendment. Does he agree that what he has just said sounds remarkably like the wording of the amendment? Is that a coincidence, or was some pressure brought to bear on the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who moved the amendment?
Mr Harper
I have not commented on the amendment yet. It is a fact that most of the report’s recommendations are for IPSA to consider. One or two are for the Government to consider, and I shall set out our view on them because the House has been asked to take a view.
It is probably appropriate at this point to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. Not only has he chaired the Committee very well, but he has taken a great deal of interest in this issue since the debate earlier this year and the House’s decision to set up the Committee and give it the mandate that it has. I also thank all members of the Committee, some of whom are present, for their work. They have carried out a great deal of research, taken a great deal of evidence and put a great deal of work into their conclusions.
The Government are unable to support the motion. It is helpful for the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has moved the amendment, because I fear that otherwise, I would have urged my hon. Friends, and indeed every Member of the House, to vote down the motion, because there are flaws in some of the recommendations and it would not have been appropriate. The amendment enables the report to go to IPSA for its consideration. Indeed, IPSA has said that it is very pleased to consider the report as part of its annual review.
Mr Harper
No, it is not the Government’s position and it is not what I said. If we were simply transmitting this report to IPSA, I would have no problem with it; the report has a number of sensible recommendations. However, if we were considering the motion, which asks this House to approve every single one of the recommendations in this report, I would have a problem and I would be urging members of the House to vote against it. What this says is that if IPSA has not implemented all the recommendations, the Committee thinks that legislation should be brought in to implement them. I am simply saying that that is not appropriate if we are going to have independent regulation.
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.
Mr Harper
Yes, IPSA put out a press notice, which is on its website for everyone to see. It has confirmed—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman let me answer his first intervention? IPSA has confirmed publicly that it will look at this report and consider the recommendations of the Committee. Indeed, it has said that it is in agreement with the Committee in a number of areas, which is a constructive response. It has learned from some of its previous responses, and is indicating that it wants to work with Members. It recognises that there are issues with the way in which the scheme works and it wants to improve it.
Bob Russell
I understood the Minister to say that the Government had not had time to consider this report, yet IPSA has had time to consider it.
Mr Harper
No, IPSA has not considered the report. IPSA has said that it will consider the Committee’s recommendations, as it considers the annual review of the scheme. As I have said, the Government have had to consider the report because the House is being invited today to decide whether to approve it. I simply said at the beginning of my remarks that the Government would have welcomed having had more than three days in which to do so, and that would have done justice to the report. Many Members said that they wanted a careful and thoughtful review, so I am gently suggesting that giving the Government three days was perhaps not entirely helpful in achieving that objective.
The Government’s interest in IPSA concerns equipping it with its statutory framework. IPSA is accountable to the House and the Speaker’s Committee, which was set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The Government are primarily concerned about recommendations 2 and 3, which are for the Government. I will say something about recommendation 17, which deals with the decision that the House would be invited to take.
Recommendation 2—the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich addressed this point—states:
“The Act should be amended in accordance with the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to provide that IPSA’s primary duty is ‘to support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently in carrying out their parliamentary functions.’ It would continue to be IPSA’s role to determine what assistance for MPs was necessary.”
It seems that there are two schools of thought about what that recommendation means. It is either a modest change that is meant to correct the emphasis of the legislation—
Mr David
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it still worries me that we are talking about at least an aspect of IPSA’s work coming in-house, to this place. Indeed, recommendation 3 says clearly:
“The best arrangement would be for that separate body to be within the House of Commons Service”.
However, if that body is in the House of Commons service, it is under the control of Members of Parliament, and I do not think that is desirable, nor is it something that would be easily understood by the general public.
That said, the report makes a number of good practical suggestions. For example, it is suggested that IPSA should extend its use of direct payments to cover as near to 100% of transactions as possible. That is to be welcomed. It is proposed that Members’ office and staff budgets should be merged, which would also be welcome. The report proposes that IPSA should make it easier for MPs to find out online how much of each budget has been spent. That would be a step forward. It is also suggested that IPSA should always ensure that MPs’ staff should have their expenses reimbursed directly and that this reimbursement should be made promptly. We would all endorse that. Those are just some of the practical and positive suggestions that are well worth active consideration and, I hope, implementation.
There are many policies and proposals in the report that I believe require careful deliberation. However, because of that, I am of the view that simply approving all the recommendations in their entirety might not be the best approach. That is why I have sympathy with the amendment, tabled by Government Back Benchers, which asks that the report be considered by IPSA as part of its annual review. I also hope that the Government will not merely wrap the report in warm words, but ensure that active consideration is given to those proposals that relate directly to the Government—in particular, recommendation 2—or the duties of IPSA.
I believe that the House has begun the process of restoring the reputation of Members of Parliament in the eyes of the public. However, to be honest, we still have a long way to go. That is why I believe that IPSA’s independence must be unequivocally maintained and that this House should not have any determining influence over any aspect of its expenses regime.
Bob Russell
Would the hon. Gentleman like to follow that argument through? Had it not been for the determination of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) in getting the House to agree that this Committee should be established in the first place—we should remember that the Front Benchers did not want this Committee to exist—we would not be having this debate now and we would not have been able to discuss the important points to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has alluded, including allowing Members to make progress and enhancing public confidence. It is not thanks to Front Benchers, but thanks to the House collectively—and the hon. Member for Windsor particularly—that we are having this debate and that this Committee was set up in the first place.
Mr David
I certainly endorse that point. The House has been mature in its approach to the issue and, as I made clear at the start, I genuinely commend the work carried out by this Committee. I would make the point, however, that for the next stage, it is not for us to accept everything before us on a blanket basis; we should pass matters on for further in-depth scrutiny and appropriate implementation. That is my important point.
I come back to the central issue of the independence of IPSA. That is a cardinal principle, and I would not want any message to go out from this House, either deliberately or inadvertently, that undermines that independence. That is important both for the practical implementation of expenses and for public perception. The standing of Members of Parliament is, I believe, something that we are all genuinely concerned about.
Finally, we all recognise that the system needs to be improved and made more effective. That is why Labour Members and I personally welcome this report from the Committee on Members’ Expenses and why I shall support the amendment.