House of Lords Reform Bill

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd). I shall be in the Lobby with him to vote against the programme motion and against the Bill, as it is a bad Bill.

I am not one of those people who has great admiration for the House of Lords. I agree with Bagehot, who was quoted earlier, that one need only go along the corridor and look at it more often. It is not such a wonderful place, even though there are some excellent and extraordinarily capable people there.

I believe in democracy and in improving our constitution, but the proposals do not do that at all. They diminish democracy in this country by setting up a counter-Chamber at the other end of the corridor. The problem, which has been mentioned in many excellent speeches, is that we have an over-mighty Executive and that this House has not kept as many powers as it should have done to itself over the years. I have not heard one speech from the people in favour of the proposal that told us how they would prevent power from being taken away from this Chamber if the Bill were passed.

The Bill will not improve the accountability of the Executive but will set them free to do more of what they want to do while being less accountable. So, the first argument in favour of it, which is that it improves democracy, falls. The second supportive reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister was that all the other countries he could think of had an elected second Chamber, which, as right hon. and hon. Members have corrected him, turns out not to be 100% true. Even if it were true, virtually all the countries that have such a second Chamber have a written constitution to deal with precisely the matter covered by clause 2, which is primacy. With no written constitution and elections to the second House, we will lose the primacy of this House.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not also accept that right now one could argue that areas of this country, particularly Scotland, are over-governed as regards democracy?

[Graham Stringer]

I want to increase democracy where it is effective so that people feel that they are changing things, not being left behind and lost by politicians. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, the idea behind the genesis of the Bill is not the improvement of democracy but the improvement of the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, who are frightened of the prospect of democracy and the electorate at the next general election. What they are trying to secure in the Bill is proportional representation in the other place so that they can be in government for ever, but I do not see my job as coming to this House to put the Lib Dems in government for ever. To achieve that, they obviously have to introduce a system of PR, but just over 12 months ago the electorate said quite clearly that they did not want to move from first past the post, even though it was not PR that was put to them.

I must ask those who say that clause 2 will protect and provide security for the primacy of this House: how? There is only one legal basis for that primacy, and that is the Parliament Act, but we are not going to Parliament Act every Bill that comes through. All the other details such as the Salisbury convention and the convention on statutory instruments are just that—conventions. If I were elected to the other place, I would say, “The Salisbury convention no longer exists, because the basis of it was the fact that some people were elected and some were not.” If people in the other place are elected, they will have the right to say, “My electorate are as important as your electorate, and a great deal bigger, and I have been elected by millions of votes, so I will vote against what you in the House of Commons believe.”

It will be impossible to prevent freely elected people from doing that, particularly when they will never be accountable for anything because they will never go back to the electorate, and I see nothing apart from the Parliament Acts to prevent the other House from challenging the primacy of this House. That takes us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that the proposals will not affect the Government. Ministers may be appointed, but by blocking legislation they could do exactly what the Lib Dems are doing in this debate: blackmail whatever Government are in office so as to get their own way and get posts in the Government.

Regional Pay

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Swansea. In my area, many people commute from Bradford to work in Leeds and the other way round. Would their pay be determined by where they work or where they live? If the Government say that their starting point is these differentials, they cannot blame people for concluding that their ultimate aim is a reduction of 10% or more in the relative pay of public service workers in some parts of the country.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

When there is regional bargaining, in which I was once involved in a trade union, the complexities mean that there are more likely to be added costs. Indeed, the situation is the opposite of everything that happens as a result of what was created in 1908 by Whitleyism.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to deal with some of the evidence that backs up his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

That was about as laboured a joke as I have heard in this place, but we will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Like the previous Government, we have said that it is important to look at the level at which public sector pay is set in each labour market over the longer term, which is why, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that there was a case for considering how local pay could better reflect private sector labour markets. He invited the independent pay review bodies to consider the evidence, which is exactly what they are now doing.

[Mr Donohoe]

I do not know whether the Minister has ever been involved in wage negotiations, but if he looks at the public sector and then at the private sector, he will see that some multinational companies do national negotiations and do not have local rates. Is that not the case?

[Mr Maude]

They may well have national negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me say that our proposals do not involve a change to national pay bargaining mechanisms. Actually, though, plenty of companies have preferential pay rates in different parts of the country, as might well make sense in some circumstances. But he clearly did not listen to what I said earlier.

Pay decisions in the civil service, below the senior civil service, are delegated to individual Departments, so it is for each Department to consider the case as it applies to its own work force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

This has been a lively and revealing debate, in which Members on both sides of the House have made promising speeches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who spoke with commitment and determination. I shall refer to Government Members later in my speech.

The lines were clearly drawn in this interesting debate. I was reminded of my youth, when I listened to the great Thatcherites on the other side of the Chamber. So much for detoxification: the Thatcherites are back in power, revealing that the main purpose of this policy is to drive down the wages of public sector workers throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mr Donohoe]

In an intervention I said that Whitleyism was a good thing. I did not realise that John Whitley was one of the predecessors of Mr Speaker in this august body and a Liberal Member of Parliament, and was responsible for the introduction of national wage negotiation. Does my hon. Friend not think that he was right?

[Margaret Curran]

I thank my hon. Friend for, as ever, making a stunning intervention.

The debate has another Scottish dimension. It is very disappointing that only one Scottish National party Member is present. The point was made earlier that the fastest way to break up national pay bargaining in the United Kingdom is to break up the United Kingdom, and that should be remembered.

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances established under Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) that it review the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and make recommendations, giving due consideration to ensuring:

(a) value for money for taxpayers;

(b) accountability;

(c) public confidence in Parliament;

(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;

(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and

(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support in crafting today’s motion and ensuring that it was tabled and supported. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for supporting Back Benchers in having their voices heard in this place, and the Leader of the House for his robust defence of the functions of the House and for making it known to the external bodies that deal with our expenses that we are keen for the system not to impede the work that MPs do on behalf of their constituents.

None of us wants to be discussing expenses, and it is sad that we have to, but given that the expenses system has caused so much trouble over the years, and the current expenses regime continues to raise concerns for many Members and for democracy at large, it is our duty at least to consider a measured, sensible and calm way forward in which we can review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to consider whether it is achieving the goals set for it. I want to make clear, therefore, what we are aiming to do today. The motion is about considering ways of cutting the cost of Parliament to taxpayers in the long term, and about giving MPs’ time back to their constituents, rather than allowing them to be waylaid by bureaucracy beyond what is necessary for accountability. It is also about reviewing whether Parliament can be a place open to people from all backgrounds, including less well-off ones. Irrespective of our own personal positions—in many cases—it is important that Parliament does not become a place where only wealthy people can serve and thrive without damage to their public reputation.

The motion is part of the process of cleaning up our politics. It is right that this debate should be held in Back-Bench time, because the terms and conditions of Members of Parliament in serving their constituents and doing their duty within a democracy are rightly for this place to determine rather than for the Government to take the lead on—unless, of course, the taxpayers’ purse is affected. Then the Government must take a very robust position.

Let us be clear: it is Parliament that holds Government and the Executive to account, not vice versa. That is why I want to thank the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and others for recognising that this is an issue that should really be raised, as it is being, in Back-Bench time.

Today’s motion says that MPs take their responsibilities seriously. What does it do? It instructs an existing Committee to review the Parliament Standards Act 2009, as amended in 2010. It not only instructs the Committee to review the Act, but asks it to make recommendations to the House about any changes that it thinks might need to take place, giving due consideration to the important issues about which we are all concerned, such as accountability.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the hard work that he has undertaken over many months on this very important issue. There is now a person in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority called the compliance officer, and as a consequence of my having a very small logo on my website—a tiny little thing with “Labour” on it—I received two recorded delivery letters and was summonsed to respond within a certain time. When I phoned, I asked why they did not just lift the phone to me and say, “Look, this is against the rules. Why don’t you remove it?” It was the way that it was done. The bureaucracy involved in that process needs to be considered, along with many other things.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. I noticed just the other day that 40 hon. Members have been reported and may well be investigated for some very minor and seemingly almost irrelevant matters. I have seen newspaper coverage of Members’ being criticised for claiming £3 here and £4 there. It seems to me that the public standing of this place is not necessarily enhanced by some of the practices in place at the moment, and that is why we need calmly to take a step back and review the situation. We need to review the 2009 Act and ask whether it is improving and restoring the integrity of Parliament and its hon. Members through its operation.

Clearly, some disgraceful acts happened in the past and no one is condoning that. We needed to make changes and I welcome the progress that has been made, but we must now calmly review the Act, its operation and the current arrangements.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

That is the irreconcilable nature of the task that IPSA has been set. These are quite deep waters and I am not sure that we can get into the intricacies in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a fundamental incompatibility between an external body controlling the terms and conditions by which staff are employed and the responsibility for that employment falling with the individual Member.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I completely support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can we move back to the motion and to trying to consider how we rationalise the headings in respect of what the regime is all about? It is clear to me that it is all so time-consuming and unnecessary and will lead to our running out of money in certain budgets. That problem would be overcome if there was a bit of rationalisation before 1 April next year—the date set by the hon. Gentleman in the motion.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to the motion, which is where we really need to be, especially given how long I have taken so far. He is absolutely right to say that we are looking for the schemes to be simplified. I hope that the motion will give IPSA the licence to do that without our having to bring forward measures. There are other anomalies that may need to be dealt with through legislation, including statutory instruments, but they do not relate directly to the reimbursement or remuneration of MPs.

I turn back to the motion, which has three substantive parts. First, there is the regret about the unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes MPs’ work for their constituents. Secondly, there is the regret about the unnecessarily high cost of the scheme; I shall not go into the details of how the new scheme costs 50% more than the one in the previous Parliament, although I am sure that others will. There are also irreconcilable differences in IPSA’s January consultation. Principle 9 in chapter 2 says that

“Arrangements should be flexible enough to take account of the diverse working patterns and demands placed upon individual MPs”,

but by introducing a prescriptive and rigid system, IPSA has manifestly failed to recognise that point in the scheme so far. Principle 10 in chapter 2 says:

“The system should be clear and understandable. If it is difficult to explain an element of the system in terms which the general public will regard as reasonable, that is a powerful argument against it.”

Yet the current system fails to respect that principle. How can IPSA expect the general public to understand the system when we MPs find it virtually impossible to understand? That is another irreconcilable point.

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 state that there is no formal job description for an MP and that defining an MP’s duties is notoriously difficult. However, the document goes on to attempt to define that role. Section 3.13 recognises the varying accommodation needs of every MP. Why, then, is the system so prescriptive about the nature of that accommodation, irrespective of family situation or the rapidly changing circumstances of individual Members?

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

Let us be clear: the compact is not about the level of expenditure but about the extent to which, in each contract, the Government play fair by those with whom they are contracting. We absolutely accept that the operation of the compact under the previous Government was not adequate. We are introducing new measures to make it more transparent, and the entire structures of our payment by results contracts will be totally transparent and in line with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the compact.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will this include Scottish enterprises?

[Mr Letwin]

Of course. If the Scottish Government take the correct measures, it will apply in Scotland; and in the UK as a whole, and in England in particular, we will make sure there is transparency and that the compact is totally observed regardless of where the contractors come from.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before turning to the Bill, I am aware that since we last met, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has announced that he will be stepping back from front-line politics when the new leader of the Labour party is finally elected. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everybody when I say that I wish him, in advance, a happy semi-retirement on the Back Benches. I hope that he agrees that Second Reading of this Bill and Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill next week is a fitting finale or curtain call for him, given his lifelong interest and expertise in constitutional matters, which we hope he will continue to draw upon from the Back Benches.

In the run-up to the election in May, all the major parties pledged to reform politics. Some of the measures proposed were quite different from this one and others strikingly similar, but there was consensus that this Parliament has a duty to restore trust to the institution of Parliament. So the people who put us here must now see us taking the action needed to do that, ensuring that politics is transparent, making certain that we can all be held to account, and ultimately, demonstrating to them that we understand that they are in charge. This Bill is a major step towards achieving that, because it is about the legitimacy of this House and restoring people’s faith in how they elect their MPs.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If I could make a little headway, I will of course give way.

The coalition has agreed a full, five-year programme of various political reforms, including fixed-term Parliaments, reform of the other place, action to clean up party funding and a new power of recall, but unless we can give people confidence in the fundamentals—in how they choose their Westminster representatives—that programme will fall short. Parliamentary elections are the foundation of our democracy, and it is vital to our political system as a whole that they are considered to be legitimate and fair. That is what the Bill seeks to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer a simple question? Does he see any party political advantage in the proposal on AV?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is impossible to predict what effect a new electoral system will have—[Interruption.] Well, many people have tried and they have come up with conflicting views—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Having listened to what happened in that parliamentary Conservative party meeting—a meeting of the 1922 committee, which was formed on the breakdown of a coalition Government way back in 1922—and heard that the deal breaker was a referendum on the alternative vote, I wonder why the Conservatives made a deal at all. They were eight short of an overall majority. They could have easily formed a Government and would have had a big majority in the House over other parties, although not an overall majority. They could have easily formed a Government and taken to the country the question of how we deal with the deficit. That the Conservative party should sell itself to the 1922 committee by going back to 1922, when the Conservatives pulled out and the coalition failed, and then go back into a coalition on that premise—a premise that is so false and empty, even from the Liberal party, which fought for a different system in the general election—is a wonder to behold.

We are now in the odd situation where we have one part of the Bill, which should be one Bill, on whether there should be a referendum on the alternative vote, and another on changing the distribution of seats.

[Mr Donohoe]

Was my hon. Friend aware that in the ’20s, the Liberal party in government—would you believe?—was opposed to any form of proportional representation?

[Sir Stuart Bell]

Times have changed since 1922, but it is a mystery to behold how we are in the current situation.

As one hon. Member has said, 72 Members wish to speak this evening. Early on in the debate, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made a remarkable and impassioned speech, saying that we should at least be thankful for small mercies. The small mercy was that the Bill is not a Bill for full-blown proportional representation. Tomorrow he should read the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister—who slipped it in very nicely—when he said that the Bill was a minimum requirement. The Government are not out of the woods on proportional representation, and someone should ask him—and we will ask in Committee—whether the Bill is the first stage on the way to proportional representation or an endgame.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The intention is for the bank to be as independent and unbureaucratic as possible. It will be a wholesaler, not a retailer, so it will support intermediaries that are growing the market for social investment. If it invests in social enterprises in Salisbury, it will do so through intermediaries that have structured financial products, such as social impact or community bonds that connect private capital with the opportunity for good, and for social impact.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with credit unions? The big idea of a bank is very similar to what already exists. Why reinvent the wheel?

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Brian H. Donohoe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Winnick]

I take that point entirely. If IPSA spent as much time trying to resolve the genuine difficulties of new and returning MPs as it gives to the press, that would be an advancement. The national press will say, as in one recent article, that MPs are too obsessed with their own position. However, what we want to do is on behalf of our constituents; it is not about our salary. Perhaps our salary has not been paid in full due to a technical fault, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. We are not going to town about that, far from it. If we want to have constituency offices and to get matters resolved, it is so that our constituents can come to our constituency offices and we can pursue their complaints. IPSA gives the impression that our concerns are all about ourselves, and that is what it tries to get over to the media.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate; it is a subject that I feel passionate about. Is it not wrong that long-standing, loyal staff find themselves in the predicament that, as a consequence of the ceiling that has been set, they might be made redundant?

[Mr Winnick]

Indeed, and I shall come to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we allow enough time for the poor man who has to answer the debate to give a comprehensive reply.

I read again in the paper this morning that MPs will be given face-to-face advice surgeries with officials, starting in September. At the moment, advice is given largely via telephone helpline and e-mail. None the less, despite the complaints of MPs, Sir Ian said that it is not a complicated expenses system. Who is he kidding? It is complicated, and I object very strongly on behalf of my fellow Members that the system has been imposed upon us and that nobody seems to be accountable.

[Mr Donohoe]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we cannot talk to IPSA but have to speak to an agency in Manchester called Calyx? When we ask a question, all the staff there can do is to say, “We’ll call you back; we have to get in touch with IPSA.” Surely that is ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Of course I do not.

[Mr Donohoe]

IPSA does.

[Mr Straw]

From what I have seen, IPSA itself recognises that there are a number of anomalies in the system—although I do not remotely speak for IPSA. Those include the anomaly that if a colleague lives in a second home that they now own they cannot make a claim in respect of that second home. They could, however, rent the home out to a third party and then use an IPSA allowance to rent further accommodation. That is plainly irrational and I gather that it is going to be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, no, I will not give way. We brought forward what became the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which gained Royal Assent at the end of June last year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and others have said, there was and is, I believe, widespread agreement that we could no longer continue with a system—

[Mr Donohoe]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Straw]

No. We could no longer continue with a system of allowances whereby we set the allowances ourselves. And yes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is absolutely right to say that all of us felt humiliated by that situation, and still do. It was and is a collective humiliation, but we cannot place responsibility for that on the board or the staff of IPSA. I am afraid that we have to look to ourselves.

There is now, however, this other factor, which hon. Friends and other colleagues have referred to this morning, that almost every one of those who transgressed the rules is now outside this House, so the 400 returning Members and certainly the 260 new Members are now paying the price and the penalty not for their own offences, because they have not committed those offences, but for the offences of predecessors who have now left the House. That is a point that I continually make to members of the IPSA staff and board. They have got to recognise that, collectively, the Members of the new Parliament are not the culprits; those culprits, with perhaps one or two minor exceptions, have left Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

No. If we are going to have an independent authority, we have got to give it some independence.

There are two fundamental problems. One is the structure of the allowance system that the authority has decided on; that is something that it decided on. Having done that, the second problem is the system of administration.

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[Mr Straw]

I have only two minutes left.

So far as the structure of the allowance system is concerned, my view is that the authority has failed to take account of the reality of Members’ work and it needs to change that. It has failed to take account of the fact that we are in a wholly different position from most people, because we do not have an office provided for us; we are expected to provide that office ourselves, and we have to do so. That is why I believe the authority has made an error in assuming that a system for incidental expenses, which could operate for staff in a normal organisation, can be brought in to operate for the complete administration of an office. None of the people who are running that system has ever been in the position of having to run a complete office system altogether.

Secondly, there are major problems about the treatment of families. I have no interest in that issue; my family is grown up. But the fact that travel for spouses and children over the age of six is not properly supported is unacceptable.

I make two final points. First, on the administration of the system, I strongly believe in and support what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said about the importance of direct payments. There was no scandal that I can remember about the system of office administration—none whatever. It would have been sensible for IPSA simply to have taken over the direct payment system, which is transparent anyway. By the way, it is not the IT system that will stop abuse of the system in future; total transparency alone will do it. The elaborate system set up to stop abuse is not needed. Unless people are suicidal, there will be no more abuse.

As I perceive it, IPSA staff and Members of Parliament have been talking past one another. IPSA made an error in not ensuring that high-grade staff were available at an early stage to talk people through the system.