Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

I welcome the intervention and the correspondence between me and the right hon. Gentleman, although we have a slightly different view about the purpose of today’s motion. We know that there will never be a win on this subject with the media and the public, whatever the scheme’s initial form. That is just never going to happen. Anybody who has been around the media, business or politics for long enough knows that that will never happen, so the question for us is: what type of scheme would be most beneficial to constituents and the taxpayer?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s input during the initial set-up, and I recognise his hard work in looking for a simple scheme, but I suspect that IPSA has not fully taken on board the power that we have given it to simplify things and make our jobs easier. My greatest hope today is that the terms of the motion never need to be used, and that IPSA comes forward with a scheme that works, thereby enabling us to do our job.

With regard to the intervention of the hon. Member for Walsall North, it is notoriously difficult to get information out of IPSA, and I understand why. Among other practices, it might not reflect well on IPSA if its senior salaries were compared with the salaries of Members of Parliament. I believe that there is also concern over the cost of the buildings that it has hired and the contracts into which it has entered. I do not want to go into the minutiae of how IPSA operates; I want to focus on the purpose of the motion and the consequences of its being passed this afternoon.

The motion presents an opportunity for the Government and our political party leaders to stand aside from this issue. The moment a party leader speaks on this subject, it is ignited and becomes a party political matter, with the parties wrangling with each other. The moment a Government get involved, it is a headline media issue—why are the Government trying to change IPSA and get rid of its independence? It is untenable for Governments and political party leaders to handle this issue, and they cannot do so in the way that is needed. I put it to the House that it is right for Parliament to handle this issue and to create the opportunity for the Government and party leaders to stand aside and allow measures to be brought forward. If it looks like those measures will cost the taxpayer more, of course the Government should have a right of veto. However, we need to deliver to the Government and party leaders the opportunity to step aside and allow this place time for calm contemplation and to bring forward measures. It is then up to the Government to make a judgment. We would be doing our party leaders a service, and it would be the first time in 100 years that they would have been given such an opportunity on the issue of MPs’ conditions and remuneration.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of worker representation, but does he accept that it would be unusual in any other workplace to invite the employees to set the terms of their expenses arrangements?

[Adam Afriyie]

The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and he is spot on. That is why the majority of hon. Members believe that it was right that an independent body set the rates of remuneration. We talked about privilege earlier, and this is a matter not of MPs’ privilege but of the people’s privilege to have an MP who can work, unimpeded by a third party that is unaccountable to the public. If a body can tell MPs how to do their work—which, in effect, IPSA can in its current form—democracy and the people’s voice are undermined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As one of the last Back Benchers to speak, I hope that I can say that we have had a good debate. Everyone has said their piece and made a valuable contribution, including the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is fast becoming a national treasure. If he was not there, he would have to be invented, because his arguments have to be listened to.

The fact is—there is no doubt about it—that we cocked up the system. The thing collapsed, and we have a system that we all know is not working, and that is hugely complex and massively bureaucratic. Above all, it is costing the taxpayer more money—namely £10,000 to administer it before any money is handed out. We are only a small body—a medium-sized company of 600 people—and if this was the private sector, there would be a little accounts department run by half a dozen people. We do not need this vast bureaucracy, so in the few minutes I have to speak, I shall offer a simple solution.

I make no criticism of the staff. As I am pretty hopeless with computers, a very nice young man from IPSA sat next to me last week for two and a half hours while, with two fingers, I tried to claim for about five journeys. My criticism is not of the young people who work in IPSA, but of our Front Benchers, and particularly the three party leaders who got into a bidding war last year and landed us with this mess. By the way, thank God they are backing out of this and leaving it to Back Benchers, because this is a Back-Bench affair—it is nothing to do with Front Benchers. My criticism is also of Sir Ian Kennedy who, with his board, seems to have no conception of how Parliament is run.

My first guiding principle is that the electors want complete transparency, yet we have created a system that is so complex and bureaucratic that it is too expensive to publish receipts that were sought in the first place. It is Kafkaesque. My second guiding principle is that the system should cost the taxpayer less, but this is costing the taxpayer more, so no one is happy—what are we gaining?

There is something of the biter bit here, because for years we have created ever-more complex social security systems to try to regulate people’s behaviour. That resulted in massive fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions, and now it has come here. Perhaps it is time for us to try to create simpler systems throughout the civil service. That is why I have always argued for a simple system of no-fraud, no-error child benefit—a flat-rate benefit.

We should have a simple, flat-rate allowance like the old London costs allowance, because every single Member of Parliament has to live in London. I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others that it is not for us to determine what that should be—it would be for an independent body. I would be out of pocket under such a system because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), I need a home in my north Lincolnshire constituency, which is three and a half hours away, as well as a home here, but we all know that the secret of happiness is not to compare oneself to others. Let us have the same allowance for every Member of Parliament.

[Duncan Hames]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leigh]

I cannot give way because I have been told that I have only three or four minutes.

Such a flat-rate allowance should be taxable so that the Inland Revenue is not involved. There would be no fraud, no possibility of error and no receipts. Every Member of Parliament would get the same.

What we have at the moment is fundamentally anti-family. When my predecessor came to the House, he virtually had to buy his seat, and when he left Newark station, the station master would say to him, “When will your next annual visit be, sir?” Over the past 30 or 40 years, we have created a system in which ordinary people with no private means—people such as me, who have been full-time Members of Parliament for all that time—have been able to devote themselves to public affairs. I am sorry to get personal, but for 27 years I have carted my family up and down the A1 for three and a half and hours in either direction. I have created a small family home in Lincolnshire, and a family home in London. Surely we should allow people to preserve that sort of lifestyle.

We are all different—some people have big families, others have small families; some have old families, some have young families—but we need a system of allowances, which I think should be set at a flat rate, and pay that allows ordinary people with no private resources to come to the House and to serve the public. That is all we want to do; nobody comes here to make money or to get rich. We just want to serve the public. We love Parliament, but surely we have to be allowed to do our job and stay with our families. This place should not become the preserve of the rich, as it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. So, away with all this complexity! Away with all this bureaucracy! Just give MPs a decent salary. Every member of the public I speak to says the same. They are sick and tired of this debate; let us end it now.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I should like to join colleagues in commending the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) for securing this debate and for the tone in which he set it, which has, surprisingly perhaps, reflected well on the House. As a new Member, I have persevered in seeking to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, because although I agree with many of the critiques of the current situation, I do not agree with many of the suggested solutions, including that suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh).

As a new Member, my experience of this place is that there are many hard-working, dedicated colleagues on both sides of the House, and, having observed their work ethic, I am in no doubt that they perceive their role to be that of a public servant. However, when it comes to our terms and conditions, our mode of operation and even our autonomy in deciding how we provide that service to the public, I have been surprised by the number of colleagues who seem to adopt the mindset of someone who is running their own business. In fact, we have heard contradictory accounts today about who employs whom in this place.

I have run a small business, but as a newly elected Member I could really have done without the freedom and responsibility of choosing my own constituency premises, negotiating the lease and sourcing the necessary equipment for my staff to use. None of that is what I came here to do. I suspect that some Members here might not even feel qualified to do it. We have all this administrative freedom to set things up exactly as we wish, but with that freedom comes administrative responsibility, as well as the unusual transaction requirements whereby MPs pay for everything first and claim the money back in what we have come to refer to as expenses.

I would argue that Members need to realise that, in cherishing that administrative autonomy, they make a rod for their own backs, by turning what for most people are the fundamentals of their workplace accommodation into what for us are treated as expenses. I would rather that we let go of all that and allowed independent, or indeed parliamentary, authorities to provide, manage and pay for our constituency offices—

[Bob Russell]

Oh, no!

[Duncan Hames]

I accept that that view is not shared by other Members, but I have waited patiently to share my view, which I hope Members will at least respect.

In the information published today, there are no expenses reported in my name. That is not because I have shouldered all those costs myself, though my team and I have taken care to limit the costs met by the taxpayer. It is because I have put off using the expenses system as long as I could, as I understood that other colleagues were experiencing what might be called teething troubles. My staff tell me that in those early days it was difficult to get either timely or consistent advice from IPSA personnel, but that the administration of the arrangements is now better than it was. I am sure that as the public start to use the information that IPSA publishes, the need for improved transparency will be apparent.

I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who argued that it would be helpful if we had some clear headings such as “constituency surgeries”, rather than the current description of “hire of premises”. I would echo the comments of the hon. Member for Windsor in his conclusion—IPSA is mistaken in deciding not to publish receipts.

A similar argument applies to arrangements for MPs’ staff. Many are modestly paid, hard-working and share all the job insecurity that we, as elected representatives, have come to accept. The budget for their employment, as was explained earlier, has effectively been cut by 10% since May and unlike other public servants they have no recourse to a professional human resources department and are instead at the mercy of the people management skills of individual legislators. Now that IPSA has deemed it appropriate to set their job descriptions and pay scales, I believe that it should also accept the support responsibilities arising from its emerging de facto relationship as their employer. MPs’ staff deserve to be treated as people and as workers and not reduced to an expense.

I recognise the need for the arrangements to be governed independently of MPs, as Members on both sides of the argument have accepted. I look to IPSA to continue to develop a fairer and more cost-effective system. We seem to be agreed about the shortcomings of the situation, but I do not believe that the answer is allowances that offer greater freedom for Members of Parliament or for Members of Parliament to threaten to bring them about.

As I believe I have set out, there is an alternative way forward whereby Members should have more time to spend on their constituents, which is what the hon. Member for Windsor asked for. Basic office accommodation, equipment and HR administration should be provided directly and Members of Parliament should let go and get out of the way.