Mark Harper
Main Page: Mark Harper (Conservative - Forest of Dean)Department Debates - View all Mark Harper's debates with the Cabinet Office
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Cathy Jamieson
Before the Minister moves on, will the Minister explain to the House exactly which recommendations he feels are flawed and why?
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.”
Mr Andrew Smith
I strongly support the line of argument that the Minister is advancing. Quite apart from the unacceptable proposals within the recommendations—the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) tries to belittle them, but they are there, they mean what they say, and the House is being invited to approve them—is it not crucial that this House does not give the impression that it is seeking to use its legislative power to lean on IPSA? That would be wrong, and we must make that clear.
Mr Harper
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which is an important one.
The House set up a proper way in which to express its views when it legislated to create IPSA—statutory consultees include Members. IPSA also has an annual review, as the amendment makes clear. The proper thing to do is to state our views through that. IPSA has published a document in which it acknowledges quite a number of the concerns that Members have raised today and in the report, including, for example, those on staffing. IPSA has made dealing with staffing one of its focuses. It seems to me that Members need to respond to IPSA. The consultation stage is open until 20 January. I urge every Member of the House who has a concern about how the system works to take full advantage of that opportunity and to feed their views back to IPSA.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am not following the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that the 2009 Act, alone among every Act over the past 100 years, is the one piece of legislation that is so perfectly crafted that it will never require any amendment ever again? Unlike any Criminal Justice Bill or any other Bill that has been introduced by the previous Government, this particular Act is sacrosanct. It has been set in stone and must never, ever be considered for amendment. Is that really the Government’s position?
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.
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.
Bob Russell
Is the Minister saying that IPSA has already responded to the report?
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 Harper
I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding to that. Or it is a substantial change that would alter significantly the way in which IPSA functions.
If it is a modest change, it is unnecessary and would have no practical implication. Hon. Members will be aware that one amendment made to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was the insertion of section 3A. That section sets out the general duties of IPSA, which are twofold. One is that IPSA must, in carrying out its functions, have regard to the principle that it should act in a way that is efficient, cost-effective and transparent, when it is running its systems and setting them up. The second duty is that in carrying out its functions, IPSA must have regard to the principle that Members of the House of Commons should be supported in carrying out their parliamentary functions efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Although the duty to have regard to the principle that we should be supported to do our jobs comes second in order, it is none the less just as much a legal duty as the first; it is not an optional extra that IPSA can put to one side. That is why the change of emphasis would be unnecessary and would simply have no practical effect in how it operates.
Mr Raynsford
Does the Minister accept the point that is articulated in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report? There is ambiguity, which was reflected in Sir Ian Kennedy’s response in trying to define the primary principles that should guide IPSA. That lack of clarity is not helpful. There is a need for a change. I am talking not about fundamental changes in the principles, but about a clarification, so that there is no longer any ambiguity.
Mr Harper
That was a helpful intervention. Let me pick it up as I move on to my second thought on this matter. If recommendation 2 is going to make a significant difference, and is not a modest change, it is misplaced. IPSA has a number of objectives that must be balanced. The Committee recognises that itself. Paragraph 97 of the report states:
“Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
It is quite clear that IPSA has a number of things that it is trying to achieve. Yes, it wants to support Members of Parliament to do their jobs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Indeed, it has a legal duty to do so. It is also interested in both restoring—there is some evidence that there has been progress in that direction—and maintaining public confidence in MPs—[Interruption.] A comment has been made from a sedentary position. I am not going to repeat it for the benefit of the House. I am afraid that I am simply reading out what the Committee said in its report. Let me repeat paragraph 97 for the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell):
““Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
Those are not my words—
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.
Alison Seabeck
The Minister is making an important point, but it is slightly at odds with his suggestion at the beginning of his speech that we were becoming frustrated with IPSA’s status as an independent body. I do not think that we find independent scrutiny at all frustrating. Will the Minister correct his earlier statement? It was a bit misleading and, as I have said, it is contradicted by what he is saying now.
Mr Harper
The Committee has done an excellent job in putting together what I acknowledge to be some very good recommendations, and I hope that the House will send those recommendations to IPSA. IPSA has said that it will look at them, and that is absolutely fine. However, we must accept that, if IPSA is indeed independent, and if it considers those recommendations and decides not to implement them, we must live with its decision. It seems to me that if we say, as the report says in paragraph 204, that if it does not implement them by next April we will pass primary legislation to make it do so, we shall no longer have an independent regulator for our expenses system. I think that I speak not just for the Government but for most Members when I say that we cannot start telling IPSA what to do.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being very generous. May I return him to the question that I asked earlier about the lack of clarity? When giving evidence to the Committee, Sir Ian Kennedy was asked to define the basic principles that guided IPSA. He was reminded that some were contained in legislation, and that some nine or 10 others were listed in a document that he had submitted. He gave us the slightly odd response that all of them were fundamental, which—as I pointed out to him—implied a lack of clarity in regard to what really were the fundamental principles. Will the Minister please accept that, given that the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was not transcribed into legislation in precisely those terms, there is genuine uncertainty about what should be IPSA’s dominant objectives?
Mr Harper
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have made it clear that IPSA has a legal duty to carry out its work and to ensure that we are “efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently” supported in the carrying out of our functions. However, IPSA must balance that duty with a range of other duties, one of which is restoring and maintaining public confidence. It will not be possible for it to have a sole objective.
Mr Andrew Smith
In common-sense terms, does it not come down to the question of whether IPSA is seen as working for us—which should not be the case—or as working for the British public? Yes, it has a responsibility to ensure that we do our job in an accountable and transparent way and so forth, but ultimately, if public confidence is to be restored, it must be seen to be working for the public and not for Members of Parliament.
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.
Mr Tom Harris
I apologise to the Minister for intervening now, but it took me some time to find the reference to his previous point about recommendation 17(c). He seems to be saying that he opposes the recommendation because it advocates a particular allowance system in six months. Actually, he seems to oppose it because it recommends that in six months
“the House should have the opportunity to consider the merits”
of the recommendation
“and to make a decision”.
Surely he is not saying that the House should be denied an opportunity to consider whether this is acceptable. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A lot of private conversations are going on in the Chamber. It is very distracting, particularly for those who wish to take part in the debate. If people want to have private discussions, perhaps they should leave the Chamber, so that the Minister can be heard.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If the recommendation simply stated that the House should have a general chat about the proposals, that would be one thing, but it specifically states that the House should be asked to make a decision on whether to change the system of allowances. If we have an independent system, we can write to IPSA asking for something different—for example, a different system of payments or a cost-benefit analysis. That is one thing. We could make those recommendations to IPSA, which could then consider them and, as an independent body, make a decision. If we decide, however, that the House can decide to change the system of allowances, we do not have an independent system any more. Members cannot have it both ways. I listened to the previous debates, and Members on both sides made it clear that we did not want to vote on our pay, pension or expenses. That is where we want to be and it is where we want to stay.
I shall conclude my remarks so that others can speak. [Interruption.] I have been generous and taken many interventions. The Government believe that recommendations 2, 3 and 17(c) are unacceptable. I therefore urge the House to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, but if it does not, I urge it to vote against the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.