Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The right-to-know form will itemise expenditure, and I hope that the Government will follow suit. As parliamentarians, we speak of transparency, openness and accountability from individuals, organisations and corporate Britain; it is only right and proper that we
should apply those same rules to ourselves. That is why there should be greater auditing of our allowances and why we should be subject to the levels of scrutiny that we expect for people outside.
When family members are employed, it is right and proper that, in the interests of openness, we should say who they are and give a broad indication of the salary band into which they fall.
On the subject of staff costs, let us clarify an issue that has been mentioned during the course of the debate. The general public believe that the words expenses and allowances refer to money that goes into our pockets and that it is money in addition to our salaries. It is therefore right that we should make it clear that up to £100,000 of that money goes towards our staff to help us to do our jobs properly. It would be absurd if somebody were to say to a headmaster that the salaries of his teachers were to be classed as his expenses, or if a manager or director were told that the salaries of all the people working under him were to be classed as his expenses, so it is absurd that the salaries of our staff should be classed as expenses. We need to clarify that in the minds eye of the public. [ Interruption . ] A lot of chuntering about directorships is going on from sedentary positions. May I remind Labour Members that there are a lot of directorships on their side of the House as well? Perhaps they might look at the entries of a lot of their former Ministers in the Register of Members Interests.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must continue by winding up the debate that has taken place.
Mr. Vara: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a typical contribution in which he was critical of the 21 Conservative Members who voted for the amendment that was carried on 3 July. However, had 28 of his Liberal Democrat colleagues, including his leader, bothered to turn up and vote, the amendment would not have been carried. Believe me, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that 28 is a hell of lot more than 21.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) spoke with considerable thought and reason, and I compliment him on everything that he said. He is right that this matter needs to be resolved before the next general election, because the public expect it and it impacts on all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) spoke with typical eloquence and set out his position thoroughly. It is a position with which I disagree, but he certainly put it on the record.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) chose to make extraordinarily partisan speeches, to the point where the Deputy Speaker had to reprimand them and remind them of the wording of the motion. The hon. Member for North Durham said that we should look only at the rotten apples of recent years. Let me remind him that in recent years two Labour Prime Ministers have had the police knocking on their doors as regards money and financial irregularities. Let us remember [ Interruption . ]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Vara: I reiterate that this is a House issue that concerns all Members, and it must be treated as such.
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Is it being whipped?
Mr. Vara: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his own Chief Whip about that. We will deal with our matters as we wish; the hon. Gentleman should deal with his own matters.
Time is pressing. All that I would say [ Interruption . ]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman continue.
Mr. Vara: This matter needs to be resolved, and I very much hope that positive action will be taken today to ensure that we move forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, we cannot be ostrich-like about it. Unless it is dealt with, we will all be treated with derision by the public, and rightly so. Frankly, Government Back Benchers have done no credit to themselves or to this House.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Helen Goodman): It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara).
I am concerned about the old-fashioned view of Members that the motion perpetuates. The role of the Member of Parliament has changed since the 18th century, when it was a part-time exercise, which those who could afford to fund themselves undertook. David Lloyd George recognised that in 1911, when he referred to the demand from democracy. Voters should choose who represents them and no one should be excluded because they do not have the means to run two offices and two homesone in the constituency and one at Westminster.
The second and equally important principle is that public money should be properly used for the purposes for which it was voted. We must demonstrate that that is the case to maintain public confidence. The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House presented today do that. First, she proposes that the green book rules be rewritten, thus ending the John Lewis list, and that the body to do itthe Advisory Panel on Members Allowancesbe augmented by two external, independent appointees. That has been discussed with the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend proposes much stronger audit arrangements, namely a full financial audit by the highly respected and independent National Audit Office, covering all allowances. That will be a proper, risk-based audit.
Mrs. May: Does not the hon. Lady understand that the NAO already audits the House of Commons, including all allowances?
Helen Goodman: I understand that. The NAO currently tests and checks the controls to ensure that they are adequate and effective. The difference is that it will now also consider the rules and guidance on what is acceptable, and robust management controls and processes to ensure compliance.
Mrs. May: I raised that point earlier. If the NAO is to examine the rules and the guidance on the rules, the Government will have to change the legislation that covers the NAO. It does not have the power to consider policy.
Helen Goodman: The right hon. Lady is not right about that. If she considers the evidence, which the NAO submitted, in appendix 3 of the report, she will realise that we are following the precise recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
We also propose that the NAO should report to the Members Estimate Audit Committee, which has two independent members, shortly to be augmented to three. Those proposals have been discussed with the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Those measures, with the decisions that the House took on 3 July, will reduce to under 1 per cent. the amount of unvouched spending, and significantly strengthen the assurance that the public can have.
When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke at the beginning of the debate, she made several suggestions, which were perceived to be impractical. She also mentioned Members of the European Parliament. Eight years ago, Labour MEPs decided to have their finances audited, and they post on their individual websites the audit letters that they receive. I emphasise that Labour MEPs took that step to improve transparency eight years ago.
The Leader of the House responded by describing the work of a modern Member of Parliament. She explained why her reforms will fulfil the Houses current needs.
The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) recapped on the debate of 3 July and made a strong case for improving transparency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) welcomed my right hon. and learned Friends proposals. He was one of the MEC three and we are most grateful to him for all his work on the subject. He is right that the role of Parliament is central. That is why the Government made it clear in The Governance of Britain White Paper that renewing trust in our institutions is essential to our proposals for constitutional renewal.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made a considered speech based on his long experience and pointed to the need for appropriate support for all hon. Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) began by reminding us of the sneer in Alan Clarks diaries about those who buy their own furniture. However, he forgot to add that the day began with Alan Clark explaining that that criticism was made by
Pinkish toffs
suffered, for ten years, submission to their social inferior.
Clearly that is not the snobbish world to which most hon. Members wish to return. My right hon. Friend also drew on his experience as chairman of the Advisory Panel on Members allowances. He commented on the
important fact that the nature of MPs work is changing and that if we want a House that is truly representative and diverse, we must recognise that in the structure of our allowances.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) highlighted the need for a more systematic approach to reform. He is another member of the MEC, and we are grateful to him for the huge amount of effort that he has made. The proposals put forward in the Government amendment build on the work that the MEC did earlier in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke about the problems of malpractice and cases where expenditure of public money has been abused for party political advantage, and about the importance of taking a systematic approach. What he said is absolutely right. That is exactly why we want to extend the National Audit Office audit to cover the systems, to ensure that they, too, are robust and that Members can rely upon them and be assured that the records that they hold are accurate.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) suggested that some sort of deal had been done on the Government Benches on 3 July, so that Labour Members would be free to vote against the MEC if they voted with the Government on pay. In fact, he is wholly wrong about that. No such deal was done; there was a completely free vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) described a catalogue of problems in the last two Parliaments and stressed the importance of financial audit.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she wanted to make a robust defence of the position in which hon. Members find themselves. She certainly succeeded. She also pointed to the fundamental weakness in the Opposition motion, in that it will reinstitute a two-tier membership of the House.
Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend look forward to finding out after this afternoons vote how many of those who vote for the Opposition motion do not rent furnished accommodation as part of their ACA claim, and therefore hypocritically do not do what the motion says that Members should do?
Helen Goodman: I am sure that there are those who will be extremely alert to the issues that my hon. Friend raises and who will provide us with that information.
In conclusion, MPs play a vital role in our democracy. They represent their constituents, they legislate and they scrutinise the Executive. To do that they must have adequate resources and they must command the confidence, respect and trust of the public. I believe that the proposals put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House achieve both those aims, involving independent external members on the panel to review the green book, abolishing the John Lewis list and providing for a full financial audit of all allowances by the National Audit Office. I commend her amendment to the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |