A cross-party Submission to the IPSA Public Consultation - January 2011
We recognise the independence of the IPSA and this letter is written as a submission for consideration in your consultation process.
Dear Sir Ian,
On behalf of my colleagues and those who elected us, I wish to register our deepest disappointment with the IPSA consultation.
We share the public’s deep concern about the integrity of Parliament and its proper administration. We clearly need a new approach that improves accountability, saves money, and stops abuse and the appearance of abuse, forever.
Yet in its substance the consultation appears to offer the scope for only minor cosmetic changes, when radical reform is needed if we are to reduce the cost to the taxpayer and restore the integrity of Parliament.
1. On 2nd December 2010, the House of Commons unanimously passed a significant motion. It resolved that if the IPSA did not propose a new scheme that would be operational on 1st April 2011, then Parliament would act to do so. It called on the IPSA to introduce a simpler scheme that significantly cuts the costs, reduces the bureaucracy, does not disadvantage less well-off Members and those with family responsibilities, nor deter Members from making legitimate claims.
It could not be any clearer: a timeline and a set of criteria by which any proposed scheme should be judged.
2. The motion gave the IPSA the clearest possible indication that Parliament would welcome major changes to the existing system, in the interests of:
a. saving taxpayers’ money,
b. giving constituents more of their MP’s time by reducing bureaucracy,
c. removing the obstacles faced by the less well-off and those with families and
d. restoring the integrity of Parliament.
3. The motion indicated support for you to propose and make significant changes. However, judging from the consultation document’s questions, comments and explanations, it is deeply alarming to discover that you are merely consulting on minor changes to the existing flawed system.
4. I would also urge you to consider the merits of a simple, taxable Members’ Allowance with a regional weighting, broadly in line with the original scheme introduced in 1911. Such a system could cover all costs except staff and office costs, which could continue along existing lines but with some of the improvements alluded to in your consultation papers.
5. The provisions contained within the Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill 2010 set out a clear approach to delivering a modern day equivalent of the 1911 Members’ Allowance. The Bill enjoys wide cross-party support. It would reduce the costs and simplify the way in which payments are made by introducing a completely transparent Members’ Allowance which is both easy to administrate and secure from abuse.
6. The following items are submitted for your consideration as part of your consultation process:
a. The motion passed on 2nd December 2010
b. The debate that supported the motion
c. The Parliamentary Standards (Amendment Bill
d. The notes to the Bill
The status-quo is untenable. I and my Parliamentary colleagues, who must ultimately answer to our constituents, will not stand aside while the integrity of MPs, and Parliament, continues to be undermined unnecessarily.
It is completely unacceptable that an entire new generation of MPs have had their reputations unjustly dragged through the mud since the introduction of the current IPSA system. Yet I fear this situation will continue unless the principles contained within the Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill are taken on board by the IPSA in the design of a new scheme.
If the IPSA does not propose a workable and cost-effective new scheme in time for operation on 1st April 2011, we have a duty to be ready to act in the interests of the taxpayer and our constituents.
Should you wish to see any further documentation and explanation, or should you wish to discuss these issues further, I’d be happy to meet with you at any time.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Afriyie MP