Consideration of IPSA’s Estimate 2010-11

SCIPSA 15

Further memorandum submitted by the Department of Resources

SHORT MONEY AND TRAVEL FOR OPPOSITION SPOKESPERSONS

1. Following its most recent meeting, the secretary to the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA asked for a note from the Department of Resources on the operation of the extended travel scheme, as was in place before the establishment of IPSA, and its relationship with Short Money.

2. Short Money is governed by the Resolution of the House of Commons, which allows it to be used for the purpose of "...financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's parliamentary business". Responsibility for the allocation of Short Money rests with the party to which the money is paid, not with the House. As a result, although the overall provision of Short Money is known (see appendix 1), the actual amount allocated to each opposition Front bench spokesman is not. Similarly, the audit regime for Short Money requires the Party’s auditors to certify that the use of Short Money is for parliamentary purposes, but does not give the House information as to what individual activities Short Money has been used for.

3. The Department has been aware anecdotally that the travel budget within Short Money has not always been perceived to be adequate for shadow spokespersons to travel to the extent they believe necessary. In order to fill this gap, the Department has for some years allowed journeys by shadow cabinet members to be claimed from the extended travel scheme on the basis that this facility, as recorded in the Green Book (most recently in July 2009, Section 2.4.4.2) enabled Members to travel, with prior approval, anywhere within the UK in order to deal with issues that were, or were due to be, before the House. Opposition spokesmen made use of this facility quite extensively so that they could broaden their knowledge and understanding of their departmental brief on the basis that related matters were regularly discussed and debated in the House. For example, the Department would have considered a Home Affairs spokesman visiting a prison or young offenders’ institution to be a legitimate Extended Travel journey.

4. The distinction that the Department made between the ET provision and travel from Short Money was that the former enabled Members to seek out information and to undertake an exchange of views (e.g. with the police, nurses, teachers etc), whereas the latter enables party spokesmen to carry out research and to set out their party’s position on a range of policy issues to relevant organisations (the Police Federation, Royal College etc). There can clearly be some overlap between these activities.

5. An added dimension to the issue is that at times there might have been a dual purpose to a particular visit. In these circumstances, the Member should have asked him or herself what is the primary purpose for travelling; the onus was on the individual Member to determine what the primary purpose of their visit was. If he or she was satisfied that the Extended Travel facility was appropriate, then they could claim accordingly.

6. The amounts claimed under extended travel for the past 5 years are shown in Appendix 2.

Department of Resources

19 July 2010

Appendix 1

Ref: Library standard note, SN/PC/1633, 1 July 2010

Appendix 2

The overall amount paid to hon. Members for extended travel in each of the financial years from 2005-06 to 2010-11 was as follows:

2005/2006 £66,310

2006/2007 £109,984

2007/2008 £122,960

2008/2009 £115,009

2009/2010 £77,756

2010/2011 £544