Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Winnick (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 2 December 2010. It occurred during Backbench debate on Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.


Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

One point arising from the speech made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that I shall immediately take up is the need for IPSA's offices to be on the parliamentary estate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who will lead for the Opposition, and the Minister will support that in their winding-up speeches. It is always unfortunate when the House is debating its own affairs. I recall our 1996 debate on salaries. That was necessary and justified in the circumstances, but no one relishes discussing our internal matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is not in a minority of one as someone who wants a proper, transparent system. He is also not alone in wishing to ensure that the abuses that occurred before never occur again. We are all of the same view. Indeed, in April and May 2007, although I do not recall that my hon. Friend was present, about five or six of us attended the Chamber strongly to object to and protest about a private Member's Bill that would have exempted Parliament from freedom of information legislation. I was pleased that that Bill never became law. In addition, about 10 years ago, I was one of those who opposed the way in which the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had her contract terminated—or at least not extended—and we had a pretty good idea why that happened. I would be absolutely delighted if the alternative system brought in under IPSA was doing its job, helping Members, ensuring that everything was transparent and above board, and operating so that abuses could not occur. However, the fact of the matter, as the debate has demonstrated, is that that has not happened—it is the opposite in many respects. The manner in which IPSA was introduced and started its work was, in many ways, intended to teach us a lesson, but I believe that teaching us a lesson is a matter not for IPSA, but for the electorate. Moreover, we saw in May a large number of new Members—more than a third of the House. Surely new Members did not need any lessons about abuses because they were not here at the time.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
519 c1046-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Administration Costs Allowances Bureaucracy Families Payments Members Location Members' constituency work Members' staff Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk