| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
"a package, not...a menu of options"?
Should not those colleagues who have expressed difficulties with some parts of the report recognise that we have a unique and privileged position-a position that we apply for every four or five years? The terms of that contract have changed. Those who do not like it have a choice as to whether they reapply.
The Leader of the House has rightly pointed out what has been done recently. It is only fair also to set out the criticism in Sir Christopher's report of what he describes as
"a series of piecemeal attempts at reform, some of which were announced while we were deliberating. These attempts have, at best, lacked coherence."
We have made some progress, but we should recognise that criticism.
Some of the recommendations cannot be implemented without changes in either Standing Orders or primary legislation. Despite what the Leader of the House said in response to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), can she assure me that those will be considered as a matter of urgency?
It is clear that IPSA will deal with the detailed arrangements. Nobody doubts that, but may I renew the call for an opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members-not just the lucky few who catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker-not to vote or amend the recommendations, but to debate them? When I called for such a debate last week, the Leader of the House said that
"the hon. Gentleman should make up his mind: does he really think it right that this House should pick over the question of our allowances when we have already decided to make that the responsibility of an independent authority? He cannot be on both sides of the argument".-[ Official Report, 29 October 2009; Vol. 498, c. 446.]
I am clear: Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals should be implemented in full without equivocation. In the light of her widely reported comments over the weekend, can she say the same, or is she trying, for whatever reason, to be on both sides?
After a disastrous and shaming year for Parliament, Sir Christopher Kelly has taken us back to where we should have been in the beginning when he says:
"Members of Parliament have the right to be reimbursed for unavoidable costs where they are incurred wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties, but not otherwise."
Is that not precisely correct?
Ms Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the report should be seen as a package, not a menu of options, as Sir Christopher Kelly recommends. I also agree that Sir Christopher Kelly himself acknowledges the progress that the House has already made to improve the system, but nonetheless says that taking a piecemeal approach has meant that this progress has lacked coherence. That is why it is important that the Christopher Kelly proposals go to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority as a whole, rather than being dealt with piecemeal.
Obviously the further issues that Sir Christopher Kelly deals with-for example, the structure of the Standards and Privileges Committee and various structural issues to do with IPSA, which are not to do with the allowances regime package, which needs to be dealt with as a whole-are ones that we will need to consider.
On allowances, we should all be on the side of ensuring that the House can do its job. It will help the House to be able to do its job when Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals go to IPSA. It is not a question of our returning to the work that we need to do; the truth is that we have never stopped scrutinising legislation, holding the Government to account and doing the work of the House. We need to return to a situation in which the public have confidence that that is the case.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): On a day when we mourn the loss of five of our servicemen, with many others seriously wounded, does that not put into perspective the question of allowances in our time? Is it not a fact that Sir Christopher Kelly is trying to end not just one year of frustration about allowances, but 30 years in which they have bedevilled the House? May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to Sir Christopher Kelly's suggestion that IPSA and the Senior Salaries Review Body look at the pay structures of Members of Parliament, so that in the longer term we can marry pay structures with allowances in such a way that the dreadful allowances system is abolished for all time and we can get back to discussing Afghanistan, the middle east, violence in Northern Ireland, the peace process, Iran and all the other issues, including the economy? Those are the matters that should occupy the House's attention.
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is the paramount role of the House. We should be dealing with issues of concern to our constituents and the country as a whole, as well as international issues, not spending a huge amount of time dealing with our allowances, important though they are to enable us to discharge our obligations on behalf of our constituents.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will administer our pay and pensions, which will be decided by the Senior Salaries Review Body. We have already decided not to vote on our pay in future. Sir Christopher Kelly suggests that perhaps that role too should be co-ordinated with the responsibility of IPSA, which is certainly something that we can consider for the future. However, the fundamental point is that we will no longer be voting on our allowances, just as we already no longer vote on our pay.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): First, may I welcome the publication of Sir Christopher's report and the statement by the Leader of the House? I very much approve of the approach that she is taking to this matter. If any parliamentary procedures are required to implement what she laid out in her statement, she can be assured that my colleagues will be happy to support her.
As the fundamental systemic problem has arisen from the fact that Members of Parliament have been setting both their pay and conditions, and the standards of their expenses and allowances, it would be entirely wrong for Members of Parliament to attempt in any way to unpick Sir Christopher's report. In that context, will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be Government support for all of Sir Christopher's recommendations?
There was one issue on which Sir Christopher did not feel it appropriate to make a comment-namely the pay, expenses and allowances of Members who do not take their seats in this House. In the new circumstances, will the Leader of the House ensure that the House has the opportunity to vote on that issue?
Ms Harman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments and the support that he has given to the efforts that the House has taken as a whole to sort the situation out. He is right to recognise that, fundamentally, the problems have arisen because we have attempted self-regulation. Even with the best will in the world, the public do not have confidence that we should regulate our own affairs in that respect any more.
I know that there is discussion about the situation in Northern Ireland. That will have to be a discussion across all the parties, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be engaged in it.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): My right hon. and learned Friend should know that the majority of people throughout the country would endorse her remarks, as well as those of the Kelly report, about family members of MPs, whose work and dedication has been very much in the interests of the taxpayer and our constituents. In that context, does she recognise that those employees have rights too? Will she ensure that their particular circumstances are drawn to the attention of the new standards authority, so that it can look properly at what the employment package involves for those who now face uncertainty about their employment prospects?
Ms Harman: Under the Parliamentary Standards Act, that issue will be the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which will of course have to comply with and respect employment rights. I should like to draw the attention of the House to what Sir Christopher Kelly said about family members who work for Members of Parliament. He said:
"Despite the publicity that a small number of cases have received, the Committee has no evidence of abuse occurring on a significant scale through the employment of family members. On the contrary, the Committee has heard evidence that many MPs' family members work hard and offer good value for money for taxpayers".
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): If the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is to be truly independent, is it not important that it regards Kelly as its agenda, and not its prescription? Before the authority considers these matters, would it not be right for the House to have a "take note" debate on Kelly?
Ms Harman: No, I do not think that we should have a "take note" debate. It might be possible in the future to keep under consideration whether there should be a further debate, but I do not think that we want to get into a situation where we have a vote on the different aspects of Kelly. We have had an opportunity for Members to try to catch the Speaker's eye today. If there is a need for further discussions about this, we will have to consider that. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to move away from the House's preoccupation with our own allowances. Many hon. Members-more than 80, I think; myself included-gave evidence to the Kelly inquiry, and he drew up his recommendations and report with that in mind. The matter will now go to IPSA, which, under the Act, has the responsibility to consult Members of this House as well as others.
It has been the habit of a lifetime for us to spend a lot of time in the House debating our pay. We have now broken ourselves of that habit, and it was important that we did so. It has also been the habit of a lifetime for us to discuss our allowances, but we know that, every time we do that, we adopt a piecemeal approach and it causes dismay among our constituents, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) said, are asking why we are not discussing their jobs and their prospects. We have now set this independent system up, and that is how the matter is to be taken forward. I do not rule out the prospect of a debate in the future, but I hope that-in so far as it is in my power to do so-I may rule out the idea that the House will take Kelly and have a series of votes on all the different bits of it. That would be very undesirable.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): We have all made a speech saying that we want nothing to do with the setting of our own pay and allowances, and that we would like those things to be determined by an independent body. When that independent body comes along and determines them, we will logically have no alternative but to accept that. If we do so, that and the other changes that we are making will finally give us a realistic chance of digging ourselves out of the dreadful mess into which the House has got itself.
Ms Harman: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I very much welcome the Kelly recommendations-moving Westminster, as they do, towards the higher standard now operating in the Scottish Parliament. At the all-party talks on these issues, much hope was invested by everyone in all the parties that IPSA would deal with pay, allowances and expenses, so it must surely be for IPSA to take the Kelly report forward, and not for MPs to cherry-pick what they like from what they do not like.
Ms Harman: Indeed. When we set up IPSA, and when we were discussing the Parliamentary Standards Act, our imperative was expeditiously to set up an authority with the specific remit of dealing with parliamentary allowances. The Justice Secretary, who took the legislation through the House of Commons, acknowledged at the time that, once IPSA was up and running, it might be able to take on a further remit-for example, that of pay. We are already safeguarded to some extent on pay, however, in that we have already decided not to vote on it. That matter could become statutorily embodied in IPSA in the future, but the most important thing is that the whole Kelly package on allowances falls to be considered by the authority and implemented for the next Parliament.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Does Kelly say anything about the generous pay-offs to MPs who leave, then subsequently rejoin, the Government?
Ms Harman: Is the hon. Member talking about the ministerial code and the ministerial payments?
Mr. Prentice indicated assent.
Ms Harman: There have already been changes in that, so that when a Minister leaves and subsequently rejoins the Government, the payment that they received on leaving is abated proportionately. That has therefore already been dealt with, which I am sure will meet with his approval.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I would like to thank the Leader of the House for her statement today, and also for her comments before today's statement. In relation to what Sir Christopher has said about the employment of spouses, was she surprised by his recommendation? In particular, was she surprised that, on page 58, he is in fact encouraging wife-swapping?
Ms Harman: Sir Christopher Kelly sets out his argument in full in relation to the employment of those working for Members of Parliament. He takes up a debate that was already running strongly in the public domain, and it is not a question of our being surprised. This is a question of the whole package going to IPSA.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP):
Does the Leader of the House recognise that, while many of us say that we must fully accept the Kelly recommendations, not all of us believe that they are as comprehensive or thorough as some have said? Indeed, they will invite the creation of some new anomalies and discrepancies that the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will certainly have to address. Does she recognise that some of us are concerned that five years is too long a period for last orders in respect of certain classes of claims for certain classes of MP? There is a serious risk that the
next Parliament will end up being a Parliament of double standards, because different standards will apply to the claims and expenses of different MPs. That is a very bad precedent for a legislative assembly to set.
Ms Harman: I do not think that it is unusual, when changing from an old system to a new one, to have transitional arrangements, when hon. Members-or anyone else-have already entered into arrangements. The transitional arrangements should therefore apply. There is nothing unusual about that, and I think that people will understand it.
John Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): The Leader of the House said in her statement that the House of Commons had to "fully resolve this damaging episode", but does she agree that it cannot be fully resolved until the issue of flipping homes for the avoidance of capital gains tax has been investigated?
Ms Harman: The avoidance of capital gains tax is a matter for the Revenue and Customs; it is its responsibility. As for the designation between main and second homes, that has already been addressed at the meeting, chaired by the Speaker, that was attended by all the party leaders, the Members Estimate Committee and the Chair of the Committee on Members' Allowances. At that meeting, it was agreed-and subsequently taken through by the Members Estimate Committee and put into effect-that there was to be no change in designation between a main and second home. Since May, there has been no possibility of that change being made. Even before then, if a proper, accurate description was not given to the Revenue about a second home, that would be a matter for the Revenue to look into so that it could deal with the tax issues.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): In joining hon. Members in thanking Sir Christopher and his colleagues, may I ask the Leader of the House please to reconsider her answer to the question on a "take note" debate? There are various issues that many people would like to discuss. Two that I can think of are, first, whether allowances could be set for a Parliament and not changed each year, as the report has recommended, and, secondly, whether Sir Christopher and his colleagues have given sufficient attention to the needs of MPs who have young children, because it seems to me that their lives might not be quite so easy under his recommendations as they should be.
Ms Harman: I will listen to, and reflect on, what hon. Members say about wanting a debate, but we all need to ask what the purpose of such a debate would be. We have all agreed that, if it was a "take note" debate, there would be no vote on it. Would its purpose be for hon. Members to make comments in the Chamber to IPSA, to enable it to understand hon. Members' position in the way that they want? If that is the purpose, that can be done either on the Floor of the House in a debate or by writing to IPSA. Bearing in mind the point we are at now, we must reflect quite carefully: we have had the Kelly report and IPSA is going to do its work. We should perhaps try to work according to an element of self-denying ordinance-as soon as I say it, I realise it might be beyond our ability-whereby having legislated for an independent authority, we actually allow it to get on with its work.
Food Labelling (Nutrition and Health)
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.10 pm
Helen Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require simple, uniform nutritional labelling on the front of packaged foods; and for connected purposes.
A very broad coalition of support for action is forming, following the extensive research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency and published earlier this year, which found that consumers were confused by the various different labelling formats on the front of packaging and wanted a single simplified system. The labelling approach found to be easiest for customers to understand is a combination of traffic light colours, high, medium, low text and percentage guideline daily amount-GDA-information. The FSA is now formally consulting stakeholders on its findings.
A wide range of retailers have already acted in response to consumer demand for simple at-a-glance information to help busy people to choose to be healthy. The Co-op, Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Budgens and Londis, Booths and Boots are all using traffic light labelling on their products. The Co-op says:
"The health and wellbeing of our customers is important to us, which is why we use traffic lights as a way to convey information and help customers to make choices about the food that they eat".
ASDA and Marks & Spencer use a combination system. ASDA says:
"An overwhelming majority of our shoppers have told us this is the style of labelling they want to see, so that's exactly what we're going to give them".
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |