Hansard Society evidence on MPs' expenses

Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, and Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament and Government Programme, have appeared before the Committee on Standards in Public Life to give evidence to assist the Committee's investigation into MPs' expenses. They recommended to the Committee that 'thorough changes' to the system are needed, and that the Committee should 'aim above the bar'.

The appearance followed the Hansard Society's submission of written evidence to the Committee, which recommended that:

• All MPs should be required to provide fully receipted claims which should then be published online on a quarterly basis subject only to redaction of personally confidential information such as, for example, bank account and national insurance numbers.
• There should be a clear distinction between: (a) resources made available to MPs for normal staff and office support paid centrally by the House authorities from which MPs derive no personal benefit; and (b) reasonable reimbursable expenses (not allowances) paid personally to the MP. To aid this distinction in the public domain the data for claims falling within categories (a) and (b) should be published at different times.
• Clearer guidance is needed to establish the division between an MP’s work serving all constituents and his / her partisan party work on local issues and how this might be organised on a practical basis.
• Eligibility for second home provision should be reviewed. MPs should be required upon election to nominate their secondary accommodation and this designation should remain in place throughout their parliamentary career unless they can provide a justifiable reason (e.g. changing family circumstances) for changing it that is acceptable to the independent Parliamentary Standards Regulator.
• Staff should be employed on standard central contracts. Payments to staff should continue to be made directly to them and salaries should be automatically uprated in line with the annual staffing allowance cost of living increase.
  
• Allowances for communication purposes are required for MPs to do their jobs adequately, but the use of them needs to be audited sufficiently by the independent Regulator to ensure public confidence in the system.
• MPs and staff should be given more support and training to better integrate and embed electronic communication and information provision into their office set up.

The written evidence can be downloaded here.

At the hearing, the Committee asked about the proposals in the Parliamentary Standards Bill for addressing the expenses issue. Peter Riddell replied that as the Bill was still progressing through Parliament it was hard to assess how effective it will be, but that it was an act of political symbolism which potentially had profound constitutional consequences. He also pointed out that it was a piece of emergency legislation, which often leads to poor outcomes (see Hansard Society evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee).

In discussions on MPs' second homes, Dr Fox made the point that mortgage interest payments may be better value to the taxpayer in the medium to long term, but if this system is to continue, and MPs are to end up with the benefit of a capital asset, there needs to be a claw-back mechanism by which Parliament gets back some of the money. She argued that unless an effective mechanism could be developed (and it is hard to see how one could be easily achieved), then it is necessary to look at alternatives which may more costly to the taxpayer overall, but which engender better public confidence in the system.

Dr Fox also made the point that better induction processes are required to ensure that any future allowance system is properly explained to new MPs, to reduce any scope for misunderstandings.

An uncorrected transcript (with quite a few mistakes!) of the hearing can be downloaded here (see paras 178-296).