---

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

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.