---

MPs' Expenses and Allowances

Sir Christopher Kelly deserves our congratulations and thanks. The report is comprehensive and thorough. There will of course be issues of detailed implementation, but does the Leader of the House agree that we would not expect IPSA to disregard any part of what Sir Christopher calls""a package, not…a menu of options"?" Should not those colleagues who have expressed difficulties with some parts of the report recognise that we have a unique and privileged position—a position that we apply for every four or five years? The terms of that contract have changed. Those who do not like it have a choice as to whether they reapply. The Leader of the House has rightly pointed out what has been done recently. It is only fair also to set out the criticism in Sir Christopher's report of what he describes as""a series of piecemeal attempts at reform, some of which were announced while we were deliberating. These attempts have, at best, lacked coherence."" We have made some progress, but we should recognise that criticism. Some of the recommendations cannot be implemented without changes in either Standing Orders or primary legislation. Despite what the Leader of the House said in response to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), can she assure me that those will be considered as a matter of urgency? It is clear that IPSA will deal with the detailed arrangements. Nobody doubts that, but may I renew the call for an opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members—not just the lucky few who catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—not to vote or amend the recommendations, but to debate them? When I called for such a debate last week, the Leader of the House said that""the hon. Gentleman should make up his mind: does he really think it right that this House should pick over the question of our allowances when we have already decided to make that the responsibility of an independent authority? He cannot be on both sides of the argument".—[Official Report, 29 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 446.]" I am clear: Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals should be implemented in full without equivocation. In the light of her widely reported comments over the weekend, can she say the same, or is she trying, for whatever reason, to be on both sides? After a disastrous and shaming year for Parliament, Sir Christopher Kelly has taken us back to where we should have been in the beginning when he says:""Members of Parliament have the right to be reimbursed for unavoidable costs where they are incurred wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties, but not otherwise."" Is that not precisely correct?