Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Wayne David (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 December 2011. It occurred during Backbench debate on Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.


Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it still worries me that we are talking about at least an aspect of IPSA's work coming in-house, to this place. Indeed, recommendation 3 says clearly:"““The best arrangement would be for that separate body to be within the House of Commons Service””." However, if that body is in the House of Commons service, it is under the control of Members of Parliament, and I do not think that is desirable, nor is it something that would be easily understood by the general public. That said, the report makes a number of good practical suggestions. For example, it is suggested that IPSA should extend its use of direct payments to cover as near to 100% of transactions as possible. That is to be welcomed. It is proposed that Members' office and staff budgets should be merged, which would also be welcome. The report proposes that IPSA should make it easier for MPs to find out online how much of each budget has been spent. That would be a step forward. It is also suggested that IPSA should always ensure that MPs' staff should have their expenses reimbursed directly and that this reimbursement should be made promptly. We would all endorse that. Those are just some of the practical and positive suggestions that are well worth active consideration and, I hope, implementation. There are many policies and proposals in the report that I believe require careful deliberation. However, because of that, I am of the view that simply approving all the recommendations in their entirety might not be the best approach. That is why I have sympathy with the amendment, tabled by Government Back Benchers, which asks that the report be considered by IPSA as part of its annual review. I also hope that the Government will not merely wrap the report in warm words, but ensure that active consideration is given to those proposals that relate directly to the Government—in particular, recommendation 2—or the duties of IPSA. I believe that the House has begun the process of restoring the reputation of Members of Parliament in the eyes of the public. However, to be honest, we still have a long way to go. That is why I believe that IPSA's independence must be unequivocally maintained and that this House should not have any determining influence over any aspect of its expenses regime.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
537 c976-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Cost effectiveness Costs Allowances Pay Members Standards Regulation Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Committee on Members' Expenses
Legislation
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk