Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Bob Russell

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Bob Russell

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Let me draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register.

It is clear that the Government are pursuing a policy not of housing benefit reform but of housing benefit cuts—a policy based on assumptions that are wholly untested.

[Bob Russell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No, I have only just started. I will give way in due course, but the hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little impatient. He might benefit from listening for a moment before interrupting.

The policy is based on assumptions, many of which are wholly untested, premises that are, frankly, incredible, and an absence of detailed impact assessments of how the eight different cuts will cumulatively affect the 4.75 million households that currently receive housing benefit. In my view, it is that absence of a detailed and thorough appraisal of the impact of the cuts that is the most serious indictment of the Government.

We have heard the Secretary of State’s claim that the effect of the changes will be to reduce rent levels in the private rented sector. His noble Friend Lord Freud made a similar claim last week when, according to a report in The Guardian, he said:

“We are expecting a large number of people who see less housing benefit to be able to negotiate their rents downwards, and the landlords will move to the new lower rate.”

As the Secretary of State and Lord Freud are clearly not totally familiar with the rented market, let me remind them and their colleagues on the Front Bench what is actually going on. Yesterday’s Evening Standard reported:

“Widespread rental ‘gazumping’ has hit London for the first time as desperate tenants fight to secure homes. Rents have soared by up to 35 per cent this year, with as many as one in four landlords asking for sealed bids from applicants, according to one agent.”

The director of a lettings agency is quoted as saying:

“The exceptional demand for rental properties which we saw earlier in the summer is showing no signs of slowing down. If anything, the rental market is now more red-hot than a month ago.”

He said that

“one four-bedroom ex-council home was recently let in Camberwell for £500 a week—£150 above the asking price and more than 40 per cent higher than the previous rent.”

A partner at Cluttons is quoted as saying:

“occupancy rates stand at an unprecedented 95 to 98 per cent, as tenants opt to stay put rather than move and risk being frozen out,”

adding that

“the stampede for homes was at all levels of the market, from studio to family homes and is in all areas of London.”

She said:

“We had a studio let at Cinnamon Wharf in Shad Thames that had been on at around £225 to £230 a week. I suggested putting it on at £305 and we got that within half a day.”

The director of another agency said:

“The demand for rental property will heat up even further in the medium-term and gazumping will become even more common as tenants look for any way in which they can get ahead of the competition.”

[Bob Russell]

I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what interest he was declaring, but my question to him now is this: is he not talking about supply and demand? If the issue is supply and demand, why did the previous Government, in which he played a leading role for 13 years, fail with the supply?

[Mr Raynsford]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in many previous debates. When we came into government in 1997 we inherited a very serious problem caused by the condition of the existing housing stock, as he knows. He also knows that a great deal of money was put into the decent homes programme to improve the condition of millions of social homes throughout the country. Because that was a priority, perhaps not enough was spent on building new homes, but if he looks at the figures, he will know that during the later years of the previous Government, until the recession hit, there was a rising trend of new house construction in all tenures, including social housing. Had that been sustained, we would now be seeing levels approaching those set out by Kate Barker in her report.

Obviously there has been a recession in the meantime. It has hit the world—it has hit this country and everywhere else—but given that situation, we want to see policies that will improve prospects rather than make things worse. The problem is that the present Government have managed to destabilise every part of the housing market. House builders are in shock because of the ill-considered planning changes. The private rented sector is in difficulty. Landlords are worried about the proposed changes to housing benefit. The social housing sector has been pulverised by the Government’s proposal to remove security of tenure and to jack up rents to near market levels. That has created a serious problem of anxiety and lack of confidence in all sectors of the market. Not surprisingly, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, there is therefore a problem with shortage of supply. That is precisely what is driving rent levels.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Bob Russell

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman has asked how many social houses were built. If we factor those figures in, the number is still considerably lower than that achieved during the 13 years of the previous Conservative Governments. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) can give us chapter and verse about how successful the housing association sector is, an issue on which the Government in whom he served failed so lamentably.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell hon. Members about the state of the social housing stock in 1997, the condition of the properties in which people were living, the extent of the backlog of disrepair that had to be dealt with and the scale of the renovation programme—the decent homes programme—that was put in place by the previous Government, which has improved the living conditions of millions of people in this country? Why is he being so churlish about that?

[Bob Russell]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the inheritance of the new Labour Government, but that makes their concentration on one aspect of housing just as bad. I am not saying anything new; these are points that, as Hansard will confirm, I put to the then Prime Ministers Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as well as to Prescott when he was in charge of council housing—or rather non-council housing.

In the years of plenty when the economy was thriving, new Labour should have emulated what Clement Attlee did in 1945 after six years of war: introduced a house building programme to house the poorest people in the land. It did not do that. The poorest people were among those the party turned its back on, which is why it lost 5 million votes at the last general election.