Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing this debate. In anticipation of press reporting of this debate, may I say that we get it—but we have had it? Also on press reporting, I would really welcome Mr Kennedy’s coming out of his luxurious bunker to tell us whether a member of staff said to an MP, “Don’t shout at me because it wasn’t me who fiddled my expenses.” I very much doubt whether that was said by a member of IPSA, because the staff are extremely helpful if they can be. I raise the matter because it relates to the whole question of staff budgets. IPSA has effectively cut £5,000 from staff budget levels. That means that 175 MPs will have to reduce their staff, which is unacceptable.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As a new Member, I inherited the staffing structure of my predecessor. He and I and our constituents have been served by those staff with both dignity and diligence. If there is no change in the staffing levels, I will have to sack someone. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is unfair?

[Jim Sheridan]

That is grossly unfair. The worrying aspect is that the hon. Gentleman may even be taken to an industrial tribunal, and who will pay the cost of that? IPSA has also denied our staff the opportunity to be awarded performance-related bonuses. What we want to know—we have been trying to find this out and it has been very difficult—is whether IPSA staff receive performance-related bonuses. If they do, what is the criteria for them and how much do they get? As for redundancy, we cannot pay staff a basic redundancy, and we have little opportunity to enhance that, which is causing us concern.

There is also the question of gender in this place. Maternity pay for our staff now comes from a contingency fund, and it is approved or rejected at the sole discretion of IPSA. There is no possibility of an appeal or anything else. Again, that is extremely worrying.

I am conscious of the time, but let me finish by referring to the question of the stand-in Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who asked why we could not have a credit card. I asked IPSA that question myself, and it came back and said:

“Your email asks whether IPSA can consider an alternative system for processing expenses, based on a credit card similar to the travel card. The system used by IPSA has been assessed to be efficient and cost effective for the purposes required. A significant advantage of the system is that it has been specifically designed to help MPs by preventing them from making mistakes at the initial stage of inputting an expense claim - this automatically reduces the level of incorrect claims and therefore reduces associated administration costs.”

If we had a simple credit card system that is transparent and accountable—that is what the general public wants and what we want to give them—we would not need all these compliance officers, communications officers and press officers. We have created an administrative monster. If we had a simple credit card system that is, as I said, transparent and accountable, we would not need all of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Of course I accept that point. The truth of the matter was—we know this—that quite a number of our former colleagues, although they were of course a minority, were being unjustifiably imaginative, to say the least of it, in their expenses claims, especially for second homes and associated expenses. Because of variable decision making by the Fees Office, bluntly the system came crashing down and confidence in the body politic was brought to the lowest ebb that I have ever seen in my political lifetime.

It was because of that situation that the party leaders agreed in May 2009 that we should set up a separate authority, and the House endorsed that decision. It then fell to me as the Justice Secretary at the time and to a team of very good officials to try to hold discussions with the other parties and to bring forward what became the—

[Jim Sheridan]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan).

[Jim Sheridan]

If my right hon. Friend had known then what he knows now, would he have done anything different?

[Mr Straw]

My view is that the basic structure of the Act is probably satisfactory, and I have heard no suggestion to the contrary. I just remind Members that, if we are going to have an independent authority—

Election of Speaker

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Bercow (Buckingham) (Ind)]

Thank you, Sir Peter, and welcome to your role as Father of the House. It was a privilege to serve as Speaker for the past 10 months and it would be an honour to serve again in this Parliament. I would discharge my duties impartially, not just between parties, but between individual Members. Above all, I would defend the rights of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account and to champion the causes dear to their hearts. For better or for worse, I have become known for insisting on short questions and short answers. Sometimes a short speech is also appropriate, so I shall leave it there in order to demonstrate that once in a while, at least, I do practise what I preach. Colleagues, thank you.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Sir Peter. May I ask a procedural question? This is an extremely important time for this House and for its democratic future. We are in the process of electing a Speaker without having the opportunity of understanding or hearing what his views are on the long-term future of this House. May I therefore ask what safeguards are in place should the Speaker decide to change the constitution of our country, either to consolidate or indeed to stabilise the Opposition or his position? What are the criteria required to support any such moves, for example, the 55% provision that the Government wish to embrace—it is thereby known as the Mugabe question?

[Sir Peter Tapsell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am sure that it will have been heard, but it is not a point of order for me to deal with under the Standing Orders. The House will have other opportunities to debate these matters.