Part 4. Operations |
132. In this part of our report we examine how IPSA's
scheme has worked in practice, with particular emphasis on the
process of claiming and IPSA's handling of claims.
14. The claims process and advice
CASHFLOW PROBLEMS AND DIRECT PAYMENTS
133. Under the old system, many bills, especially
for office costs, were paid by the House direct to suppliers,
with the great advantages that no money passed through MPs' hands
and MPs were not left out of pocket. In 2008/09, around £7
million of the £11.5 million of office expenditure was paid
in this way.
134. IPSA's Board was opposed to such arrangements,
apparently less because of any administrative difficulties than
because (strangely) it regarded them as inconsistent with the
principle of reimbursing payments already made.
In fact they are entirely compatible with that principle, as they
are, by definition, for costs actually incurred. Instead, IPSA
proposed a system of interest-free loans, a policy which our predecessors
on the Committee on Members' Allowances criticised as likely to
be "complex, expensive and cumbersome" and to create
cashflow problems for MPs.
IPSA rejected the Committee's views, stating that "we remain
confident that our approach will be straightforward to administer".
135. IPSA's policy, combined with the time taken
to pay claims, had exactly the effect predicted. The NAO concluded
that "MPs are spending large amounts of their own money upfront
on their Parliamentary functions and some told us they suffer
cash flow difficulties as a result. ... we calculate that in 2010-11
MPs who used the Scheme spent an average of around 50 per cent
of their basic pay after deductions on expenses for which they
had to await reimbursement" (£1,549 per month).
136. The Hansard Society, drawing on its surveys
of new MPs, observed that "many MPs found their early months
in office a real financial struggle; many had incurred significant
personal financial costs as candidates and this was then compounded,
to an unreasonable degree, by being required to fund the set up
of their constituency office and then subsequently reclaim the
costs from IPSA, payment of which was often delayed leaving many
MPs in debt for a period". It added that paying out substantial
sums and receiving them back often weeks later "is more manageable
for some than others and will impact most detrimentally on MPs
of modest means".
New MPs in May 2010 did not have the benefit of the start-up funding
which IPSA has recently introduced, though IPSA told us some contingency
funding was provided.
We are not aware of any other profession with outgoings in advance
of reimbursement on such a scale as that of MPs under IPSA's scheme.
137. As regards the time taken for claims to be paid,
IPSA's target is for 95% of claims to be processed within 12 working
days, which has been achieved from January 2011 but was not met
before that. The
NAO noted that in mid-2011 claims were on average being processed
in six working days, but that that was only part of the time MPs
had to wait for reimbursement: "Assuming they were to claim
fortnightly, and taking into account the time between submission
and reimbursement, claims may not be repaid for between two and
three and a half weeks".
The NAO recommended that IPSA set itself a more challenging target
for approving routine claims, and IPSA has revised its target
somewhat to ten days.
138. IPSA responded to the difficulties MPs were
experiencing by completely reversing its policy. In addition to
its loan scheme, it allowed claims for expensive items such as
computers and office equipment in advance and in November 2010
introduced direct payment for office and residential rent payments
and extended use of the payment card from travel to council tax
In mid-2011, IPSA's view was that if MPs took full advantage of
the facilities available (not including advances), those using
the scheme would spend 13% of their basic pay after deductions
on expenses for which they had to await reimbursement, instead
of 50%. IPSA's
Director of Policy told us that the direct payments and payment
card could now cover up to 77% of costs, and "In time, hopefully,
we will cover pretty much everything."
A recent development is IPSA's agreement with the Trainline, which
will provide IPSA with all the information needed for legitimate
costs to be paid and published.
139. The payment card avoids the problem of cash
passing through MPs' personal bank accounts, but creates its own
problems over reconciling card statements with claims. Direct
payments offer a more promising approach, by simplifying the claims
process. MPs, and especially new MPs, ought not to have been put
in the situation they were in during the early months of this
Parliament, but IPSA's steps to remedy that situation through
greater use of the payment card and direct payments are welcome.
In our survey, 95% of MPs who responded agreed or strongly agreed
that IPSA was right to introduce more direct payments to suppliers,
and 68% that the extension of the travel card was an improvement.
THE SYSTEM FOR CLAIMING
140. IPSA's online claims system was criticised by
almost all the MPs who responded to the NAO's survey, though some
accepted that there had been improvements. The main criticism
was that it was extremely time-consuming to use, especially with
its combination of online claims and paper-based receipts, taking
up time which MPs could be using to serve their constituents.
141. IPSA's view is that the system is "pretty
standard" for expense management systems used by industry
across the country, and that many other organisations use it.
However, as the NAO observes, certain aspects of the payments
scheme are peculiar to MPs, including the high number of separate
claims, the separate forms for different budgets and the inability
to send e-receipts or scanned receipts to IPSA.
IPSA appears to have acquired a fairly standard system to do a
far from standard job.
142. Specific criticisms made by MPs in May-June
2011 in response to the NAO's survey include:
- Tendency of the system to crash;
- Requirement to put in separate claims for each
item, including daily claims for travel and monthly claims for
items paid annually such as insurance, combined with repetitive
data entry because information could not be pasted across and
the system does not learn and offer defaults;
- Absence of any way of recording explanations
(eg the need for a taxi for a particular journey) without having
to repeat them for every similar claim;
- Forms which are too wide for the screen;
- Requirement to print out and post claims with
the relevant receipts attached (even in the case of mileage, for
which no documentary evidence exists), combined with a clumsy
procedure for printing out requiring numerous mouse-clicks;
- Difficulty in correcting mistakes;
- Uncertainty over which form to claim on;
- Lack of clarity over whether the date should
be that of the invoice or the payment, together with uncertainty
over bills covering the end of the financial year and the start
of the next;
- Timing out if other tasks such as constituents'
phone calls are attended to;
- The time required to reconcile payment card statements
- Inability to track claims and to link them with
payments received, which are often aggregated and do not indicate
what they cover;
- Inability to determine how much of a budget has
been spent without keeping detailed financial records in addition
to the information fed into IPSA's system.
143. The observations of MPs' staff contributed to
Unite's survey provide a similar picture, though in this case
the comments are from January and February. About 70% of staff
who had processed claims under the old system said they had spent
less than an hour a week doing so, and only 1.5% spent three hours
or more, whereas under the new system only 8% spent less than
an hour and 59% spent three hours or more.
144. The problems have been compounded by changing
requirements, difficulty in obtaining advice and IPSA's unwillingness
to say in advance whether a claim will be accepted. In effect,
IPSA has outsourced a great deal of its administration to MPs
and their staff, while providing less information to Members in
return than the old paper-based system did. The way the online
claims system works symbolises better than anything else IPSA's
initial approach to its task.
145. IPSA has accepted that it could do more to reduce
the burden on MPs, and has been taking steps to do so, including
improvements to the electronic system, greater use of direct payments
(for example for train travel and constituency office supplies)
and a pilot scheme to simplify mileage payments.
It calculated that taking over some of the data entry would cost
about £150,000, adding about 6% to staff costs, though adopting
the Scottish Parliament's system would cost £800,000 extra.
In our survey, 18% of MPs agreed with the statement that 'Since
June 2011, I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount
of time my staff and I spend dealing with expenses", but
58% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
IPSA'S HANDLING OF CLAIMS
146. MPs made a range of criticisms of IPSA's handling
of claims in their responses to the NAO:
- Inconsistent decisions on similar
- A tendency to reject an entire claim when there
is a problem (such as inadequate evidence) affecting only part
- A 90-day limit on claims, which causes difficulties
with, for example, quarterly bills, or bills which suppliers are
slow to submit;
- Staff not reading explanatory paperwork sent
- Loss of documents (though there were relatively
few claims of this);
- A tendency to reject or send back claims rather
than query them.
147. Similar criticisms were made by MPs' staff who
responded to Unite's survey. These are all of course individual
anonymised remarks, and it is not possible to check that all were
well-founded, such as those relating to inconsistent decisions.
In particular, IPSA rejected the suggestion made in evidence to
us that documents were lost and the 90-day rule was imposed when
they were re-submitted, stating that the electronic system made
the risk of evidence being lost low and that, if IPSA lost the
paperwork, it would waive the 90-day limit. It also told us that
it would return claims if additional evidence was required, which
was not the same as rejecting the claim.
In our survey of MPs, 63% stated that on at least one occasion
in the previous six months IPSA had lost paperwork they submitted
in support of a claim.
AVAILABILITY OF ADVICE
148. MPs responding to the NAO made the following
criticisms about the availability of advice from IPSA:
- Guidance difficult to find;
- Inconsistent advice from different people, or
- Advice by phone available only in the afternoons
(from 1 to 5 pm), and difficulty in getting through by phone;
- Slowness in responding to emails;
- Difficulty in securing face-to-face meetings;
- Absence of any system of case management or tracking
of enquiries, so that the same explanations have to be made repeatedly
to different people;
- Refusal to say whether claims are within the
rules in advance of a claim being made.
149. These criticisms were similar to those made
by MPs' staff earlier in the year.
Some of these criticisms also featured in our more recent survey
of MPs, but there was a mixed picture, with substantial numbers
indicating that they had received "fairly useful" advice
from IPSA in the previous six months; 74% said they had received
"particularly helpful service from IPSA staff in the relation
to the processing of expenses claims" at least once in the
previous six months. There was some improvement in MPs' perceptions
of the quality of IPSA's advice since the NAO asked a similar
question in May/June, especially as regards advice provided in
150. Again we cannot check what happened in individual
cases. As regards inconsistent advice, IPSA told us that it had
"seen no evidence, other than unsupported anecdotes, that
such incidents are anything other than infrequent and isolated",
and it would want to investigate any examples provided to it.
However, in our survey of MPs, 81% said they had received inconsistent
advice from IPSA at least once in the past six months. Other items
in the list are undisputed, such as the limited phone enquiry
service, the absence of tracking of enquires and the refusal to
say whether a claim is within the rules until it is made. The
NAO noted that "IPSA's guidance is not currently consolidated
in one place, or easily searchable".
It also observed that IPSA's handling of enquiries improved from
October 2010 onwards, but that its speed of responding to written
correspondence "remained variable".
151. There is some evidence of some MPs being better
able than others to secure help from IPSA. The response of one
to the NAO was that "We bundle up receipts and then ask IPSA
staff member to come to our office to input them. This works and
reduces our exposure to risk." This clearly cannot be a general
152. As regards unwillingness to give advice in advance
of a claim on what might be allowed, IPSA's reason is, in part,
"that MPs must take responsibility for their spending decisions".
That, however, would be an argument for IPSA having no rules at
all and leaving MPs to take responsibility. The CSPL stated its
view that "it is a proper function of a regulator to be prepared
to give advice on the implications of the regulations for which
they are responsible, and that they ought to be able to do so
without prejudicing the fact that ultimately it is an MP's own
responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of their claims".
Like the CSPL, we consider it reasonable that IPSA should give
advice on whether its own rules permit or do not permit a particular
claim; this would not remove the responsibility for making the
claim from the MP. It is already the practice to give such advice
in the Scottish Parliament. As unsuccessful claims are published
whatever the reason for them, not giving such advice exposes an
MP to the reputational risk of having a claim rejected and publicised.
153. The CSPL recommended that "Responsibility
for investigating allegations about breaches of the rules on expenses
should be vested in the independent regulator, which should be
able to appoint its own compliance officer for this purpose. The
compliance officer should be able to conduct an investigation
on his or her own initiative, at the request of the independent
regulator, or in response to a complaint from a member of the
public or an MP."
Such a person was duly provided for in the 2010 Act, to be appointed
by IPSA for a non-renewable five-year term. He has responsibility
for adjudicating between MPs and IPSA about disputed claims, for
investigating alleged abuses notified by members of the public
and for launching his own investigations of suspected abuses.
154. An interim Compliance Officer was appointed
on 10 May 2010, a permanent Compliance Office (Luke March) was
in place from 31 March to 27 July 2011, and the present interim
Compliance Officer (Martyn Taylor) was appointed on 28 July.
We took evidence from the last two of these. To date, there have
been two requests by MPs for reviews of decisions by IPSA (one
resulting in a formal review); 41 investigations, of which 18
have been closed after a preliminary investigation and 21 after
a substantive investigation, leaving two open; and 36 complaints
accepted as "qualifying complaints", 35 from members
of the public and one from an MP.
Of the 21 results of investigations published recently, 20 were
about the use of party-political logos on websites.
155. Hugh Thomas told us that he would expect a compliance
officer to be "very much the conscience of the board and
the chief executive", advising the Board and others and much
closer to the Board and the organisation as a whole, with unfettered
access to people and documents and the ability to begin a review
of any aspect of the organisation; IPSA's, on the other hand,
seemed to be more of an investigations officer.
Luke March considered the role was "a bit better than that"¯more
of an ombudsman or an adjudicator; however, the equivalent person
in any other regulator would be the enforcement director, who
would probably be a member of the Board.
IPSA response is that the internal assurance role is undertaken
by officials, and "it is correct to say that the Compliance
Officer's main role is therefore investigatory".
156. The Compliance Officer is appointed by IPSA,
which determines his terms and conditions, and has a contract
from IPSA but is said to be "functionally independent".
The Act requires that IPSA provide him with adequate resources.
IPSA does stipulate the procedures for investigation and determines
what is published, but the Compliance Officer is independent in
carrying out the investigations and determining the timing of
Taylor told us he had not needed to remind the Board about his
independence, and emphasised that the Compliance Officer, not
being an employee, was able to comment freely on IPSA's actions
Luke March referred to "an extraordinary climate of suspicion
towards the compliance role", though he added that "I certainly
felt independent of the Board".
157. The cost of the compliance operation in 2010/11
was £307,000, though this included the cost of setting up
processes and procedures and recruiting staff. The cost is expected
to fall to £265,000 in 2011/12 and to around £190,000
There is only one member of staff besides the Compliance Officer
himself, who is part-time.
Martyn Taylor told us that IPSA's procedures for investigation
had proved over-restrictive, but the changes currently being consulted
about would make the process simpler and clearer. For example,
they would remove the requirement to open a preliminary investigation
before making enquiries of IPSA or an MP about a particular complaint.
He did not believe changes to the legislation were needed.
158. While IPSA is both administrator and regulator,
a Compliance Officer based within IPSA but independent of it seems
unavoidable. We consider later whether IPSA's regulatory and administrative
functions should reside within separate organisations,
in which case different arrangements would be appropriate, with
the present compliance function possibly developing into something
like the enforcement function in other regulators.
15. What may be claimed
159. 76% of MPs who responded to the NAO's questionnaire
said there had been occasions when they had not been able to claim
enough because of the levels at which the various budgets are
set. 45% of those responding had found staffing expenditure insufficient,
and the figures were 34% for office accommodation expenses, 33%
for accommodation expenses, 22% for subsistence and 21% for travel
expenditure. 91% tended to agree or strongly agree with the proposition
that "MPs have to subsidise their own constituency work".
that MPs are not always able to claim as much as they believe
is needed for their parliamentary functions is not on its own
evidence that more should be made available, especially at a time
of financial stringency. As the NAO observed, the fact that most
MPs have not claimed the full amount under most budgets in 2010-11
suggests that the amounts available are not the central issue,
though this is also bound up with the matter of deterrents to
claiming the full sums, as discussed above.
IPSA pointed out that some flexibility is provided by contingency
arrangements, under which £700,000 was made available to
140 MPs in 2010-11, for reasons such as very high levels of casework,
shortage of suitable office space at reasonable rents and high
We concentrate here on several matters which have caused particular
difficulties. One such matter, support for families, has been
160. Staffing is the budget which MPs have found
most constrained. IPSA states that it has continued the practice
of providing funds for each MP to employ 3.5 (full-time equivalent)
it made two significant changes:
- It included in staffing costs
the employer's contribution towards pensions (then averaging £8,119).
The staffing budget was increased in response, but it was suggested
to us that the increase did not fully compensate for the change.
- It prevented MPs "vireing" funds to
their staffing budget from other budgets. In 2008/09, 120 MPs
topped up their staffing budget from other budgets by vireing
reason for doing so was its view that virement was "not consistent
with the principles of openness and transparency, treating MPs
like other citizens, or of designing a clear and understandable
no part of which explanation we find at all convincing.
161. There is some anecdotal evidence of MPs reducing
the number of staff employed, or making greater use of unpaid
is scope for debate about whether enabling MPs to employ more
staff is necessarily a good thing, but we do not regard a reduction
in the ability to employ staff compared to the period before 2011
as justifiable. We note that IPSA has begun a consultation on
staffing requirements and funding.
162. We raise just three issues in respect of accommodation,
in addition to provision for families which is discussed elsewhere.
As regards constituencies deemed too close to London for additional
accommodation to be justifiable, the House increased the number
of such constituencies to 54 in 2008, the CSPL would have increased
the number much further (to anywhere with a door-to-door commuting
journey of less than an hour), IPSA initially proposed 56, and
IPSA's initial scheme raised the number to 128, including constituencies
as far from London as Aldershot, Basingstoke, Chelmsford, Guildford
and Milton Keynes.
If being an MP were a Monday to Friday 9 to 5 job, that might
be seen as treating MPs like other citizens, but that is not so
when there are late-night sittings and early-morning committees.
IPSA's funding for occasional hotel stays and use of taxis and
its reduction of the number of constituencies whose MP is not
entitled to accommodation expenses to 97 (those 20 miles or less
from London) has ameliorated this situation.
163. As regards the amount which can be claimed,
the cap in the London Area is £19,900, or £1,658 per
month, covering rent together with associated expenditure such
as utility bills, council tax and contents insurance (replacing,
at no extra cost to the taxpayer, the previous limit of £1,450
per month for rent plus a payment for associated expenditure).
In February 2010, the Committee on Members' Allowances obtained
advice from chartered surveyors that the range for a one-bedroom
property in the Victoria area was between £1,538 and £2,058
per calendar month. That Committee also noted that the Ministry
of Defence paid rents in central London up to a limit of £3,030.
IPSA states that it analysed rental prices in London in February
2011, in relation to the limit then of £1,450 per month,
and concluded that in 76 London postcode areas, the average rent
of a one-bedroom property was £1,450 per month or less. Most
of these postcode areas are some distance from Westminster, but
they included several close to Westminster south of the Thames.
164. Abolition of support for mortgage interest was
probably inevitable in view of the abuses uncovered in 2009. Mortgage
interest is likely to be cheaper than rent, if there are sufficient
safeguards against abuse, which was not the case before 2009.
We note that in some cases the withdrawal of support for mortgage
interest for existing mortgages on 31 August 2012 will result
in the taxpayer having to meet higher claims being made for rent.
The matter of MPs who claimed for mortgage interest before May
2010 being liable for capital gains requires attention.
165. The CSPL argued that MPs who stood down voluntarily
at a general election should no longer receive resettlement grant
but instead eight weeks' pay from the date of the election. It
recommended that those who lost their seats at a general election
should continue to receive resettlement grant, which should be
one month's salary for each year of service up to a maximum of
nine months. IPSA
in its consultation proposal expressed scepticism about whether
there should be any form of redundancy payment for MPs, and made
the bizarre suggestion that MPs could insure themselves against
losing their seats.
The Committee on Members' Allowances noted that the effect of
IPSA's proposal would be that MPs would continue to be subject
to redundancy at an unpredictable time without any possibility
of preparing for it, would not even receive statutory redundancy
pay (as they are office-holders rather than employees), and would
be expected to wind up their constituency affairs without pay.
This would be to treat MPs worse than other citizens, and would
strongly discourage anyone without private means from entering
response was that redundancy pay was not a reimbursement of expenses
but part of an overall package of employment terms and conditions,
and would therefore be considered with MPs' pay and pensions if
it became responsible for setting those.
166. Another aspect is flexibility, for example when
an MP seeks to combine in a single journey parliamentary purposes
and party-political, family or personal purposes. Clearly IPSA
should pay only as much of the cost as was necessary for the parliamentary
purpose, and would need to be satisfied that that purpose was
sufficient justification in itself for the journey, but not to
pay at all because several purposes have been combined is to impose
unnecessary constraints on an MP's activity. On the other hand,
the rules need to be sufficiently precise that MPs know what claims
are within the rules and can demonstrate that their claims have
been legitimate ones within the rules set by an independent body.
The Chair of IPSA told us that "we would wish to move more
to greater discretion for the MP rather than to increasingly detailed
rules, because of the diversity of MPs"; this depended on
growing trust, and was "an evolutionary process".
Any such change will need to be handled carefully, as, while MPs
must take responsibility for their own claims, IPSA has a responsibility
for determining what claims are legitimate and endorsing them
16. Impact on MPs' staff
167. We received evidence from the Unite Parliamentary
Staff Branch and the Members' and Peers' Staff Association about
the impact of IPSA's scheme on the terms and conditions of MPs'
staff. Some of the staff observations related to the difficulties
of the claims process, and were similar to MPs' observations.
As one member of staff put it, "I feel the constituents have
been let down by the amount of time we are diverted away from
day to day business to deal with admin and expenses matters".
There were several criticisms relating to the impact on staff.
168. As discussed above, under the IPSA scheme, the
staffing budget has risen from £105,264 in 2009/10 to £115,000
in 2010/11, but it is now expected to cover staff pension payments
and child care costs, previously met from a central budget.
The Chair of the Parliamentary Staff Branch of Unite noted a "huge
amount of disquiet" about the changes. He said that IPSA's
defence was that it had removed a number of elements previously
included in the staff expenditure budget, but these elements made
a "negligible difference" to the budget, and the end
result was "evidence of staff hours being reduced and redundancies
taking place as a result".
169. Staff employed before May 2010 are eligible
for £8 a day as a contribution to childcare costs. However,
those taken on after May 2010 are eligible only for a salary sacrifice
scheme. Unite told us that a number of their members who were
made redundant at the election when their MP stood down or was
defeated had subsequently found employment with another MP, but
were finding that the change to child care support was making
it "increasingly difficult to make ends meet". Unite
believed the change had been "purely for budgetary reasons",
and considered that "It is a backwards step and sends a message
that Parliament is not a family-friendly place to work".
IPSA states that it "recognises that its Scheme is less generous
than the previous Scheme administered by the House of Commons,
but it believes its Scheme provides a suitable level of support
to staff members, comparable to the schemes administered by other
public sector organisations".
170. Another concern is redundancy payments. The
Chair of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch informed us that
MPs' staff used to be eligible for a maximum 15% bonus in a given
year, at the discretion of the MP concerned and if funds were
available in the MP's staffing budget. In the event of redundancy,
this could be "matched" with an additional bonus, again
at the discretion of the MP concerned and if funds were available.
This was in addition to statutory redundancy pay.
Under the new scheme, staff redundancy payments are paid from
the contingency fund; IPSA's standard contract for staff states
that these will be "made in accordance with statutory requirements"¯in
other words, without the possibility of a bonus.
Unite suggested that, combined with the move to fixed-term parliaments,
the reduction in redundancy provision for MPs' staff was likely
to make retention a "real problem" in the period leading
up to an election.
171. Some staff who responded to Unite's survey mentioned
delays in receiving payments when they had incurred costs on behalf
of the MP, sometimes of a month or so, slowness in paying the
expenses of unpaid interns and the fact that payments are made
to the MP rather than directly to them. For example: "Trying
to claim for train tickets to attend surgeries in the constituency
every month typically takes four weeks; when you're on a low salary
of 17K, waiting for IPSA to refund £60 every month is a nightmare";
"When a bill needs to be paid urgently I have to put it on
my card and then wait to reclaim it from IPSA, via my Member";
"I have to pay BT bills myself then claim the money back
as I know from experience they are slow and we have been threatened
with bailiff action"; "It is my money that I have paid
out of my pocket [for mileage, train tickets and office supplies]
... doing the work I am expected to do yet I have a monthly battle
trying to work out if any of the monies have been paid".
One constituency worker said that attending training courses at
Westminster, involving train and hotel costs, had become "virtually
impossible due to the claiming back systemthose of us on
low wages ... simply cannot afford to have such an outlay".
IPSA is not the employer of MPs' staff, but it has a duty of care
towards them and needs to take much more account of their relatively
222 MAC, para 36. Back
IPSA, MPs' expenses: a consultation (January 2010), paras
7, 10.10. Back
MAC para 34. Back
IPSA, The MPs' expenses scheme (March 2010), HC 501, 2009-10,
para 34. Back
NAO, paras 20, 2.25. Back
Ev 29-30. Back
Ev 77, para 51. Back
NAO, p 26. Back
NAO, para 2.26. Back
NAO, para 25f; Ev 77, para 48. Back
Ev 77, para 50. Back
NAO, para 20. Back
QQ 54, 57. Back
Ev 77, para 50. Back
Q 277; PAC, Q 85. Back
NAO, para 2.12a. Back
This paragraph is based on the individual observations made in
response to the NAO's survey of MPs. Back
Survey by Unite, questions 2 and 3. Back
PAC, QQ 5, 12; Ev 77, para 50; Ev 79, para 71. Back
PAC, Q 11. Back
Ev 108. Back
Survey by Unite. Back
NAO, 'MPs views on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority',
Q 3c. Back
Ev 108. Back
NAO, para 1.18a. See also NAO, para 2.12. Back
NAO, para 2.7. Back
NAO, para 2.12. Back
Ev 96, para 18. Back
CSPL, recommendation 44. Back
Ev 90. Back
Ev 91. Back
Ev 93. Back
Q 133. Back
QQ 205-7. Back
QQ 323-4. Back
Ev 109. Back
2010 Act, Schedule 3; Ev 90, para 4; Q 123. Back
2010 Act, Schedule 3; QQ 123-4. Back
Q 129; Ev 92, para 38. Back
QQ 313, 316. Back
Ev 94-5, paras 9-10; QQ 139-40, 162. Back
QQ 158-9. Back
Q 143; Ev 92-3, paras 41-7. Back
Paras 175, 177 below. Back
NAO, 'MPs' views on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority',
QQ 17 and 21. Back
NAO, para 1.22. Back
Paras 127-31 above. Back
Ev 77, paras 51-2. Back
Paras 121-6 above. Back
IPSA, Annual Review of the MPs' expenses scheme: consultation
(January 2011), p 55. Back
QQ 359, 382. See IPSA, Annual review of the MPs' expenses scheme:
consultation (January 2011), pp 55-6. Back
MAC, para 40, drawing on information from the House of Commons
Department of Resources. Back
IPSA, MPs expenses: a consultation (January 2010), para
QQ 359, 370. Back
See IPSA, Annual Review of the MPs' scheme of expenses and
costs: consultation (November 2011), chapter 3. Back
Paras 122-3 above. Back
CSPL, paras 5.72-5.74 and Recommendation 7; IPSA, MPs' expenses:
a consultation (January 2010), para 6.12; IPSA, The MPs'
expenses scheme (March 2010), pp 52-3. Back
IPSA, The MPs' expenses scheme (March 2010), paras 5.9-5.10;
IPSA Scheme, para 4.17. Back
MAC, para 60. Back
IPSA, Annual review of the MPs' expenses scheme 2010-11
(March 2011), para 7.6 and map on p 113. Back
CSPL, paras 10.13-10.28 and Recommendations 30-1. Back
IPSA, MPs' expenses: a consultation (January 2010), para
11.7. See MAC, paras 143-52. Back
MAC, paras 145-52. Back
IPSA, The MPs' expenses scheme (March 2010), paras 213-14. Back
Q 44. Back
IPSA Scheme, paras 7.3, 7.5. Back
Q 359. Back
Ev 106, paras 6-7; Q 366. Back
IPSA, Annual review of the MPs' expenses scheme 2010-11
(March 2011), EIA para 2.40. Back
Q 370. Back
IPSA, Statement of main terms and conditions of permanent employment
for Members' staff, para 25. Back
Q 370. Back