» Wednesday, July 16, 2008

MP’s Expenses

The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) told the assembled press that the Leader of the House was in the process of tabling a Written Ministerial Statement setting out the Government’s position on the matter. Since the vote on the 3rd July, the Leader of the House had had a number of discussions, not only with Members of Parliament, but also with the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The written statement that she was publishing made a number of proposals. Firstly, the Green Book that sets out the rules on entitlements to allowances, should be re-written by the Advisory Panel on Members Allowances, including abolishing the so-called John Lewis List. The Advisory Panel on Members Allowances would keep the Green Book under review and would advise on any further modifications to the rules that may be required, including what the reasonable costs of mortgage interest for a second residence were.

We were also proposing consulting on changing the additional cost allowance, so that the reasonable reimbursement of the cost of furniture and other household goods was capped at 10% of the additional cost allowance in any one year. We would strengthen the Advisory Panel on Members Allowances by increasing its membership to include two independent, external appointees. There would also be an external financial audit by the NAO, covering all of the allowances in the Green Book, not just the additional cost allowances, but also allowances relating to travel, staffing costs, incidental expenses and the communications allowance.

This was something that, following the vote on the 3rd July, the Prime Minister had said was an issue that would need to be looked at again. That was why the Leader of the House had been in discussion with MP’s and other people and had been working on a series of proposals for several weeks. In light of the late decision taken by the opposition to change the subject for the opposition debate today and in light of the fact that there was going to be a debate anyway at short notice on MP’s expenses, it was decided that we would set out the full Government position today.

This would be a whipped vote on a Government amendment, on the basis of the amendment tabled by the Government and the proposals set out in the Leader of the House’s written statement.

Asked whether the House would go through and give figures of what was acceptable for every type of claim, the PMS said that this was something they would have to look at. In the Government’s view, the issue with simply restricting the additional cost allowance to mortgage interest payments, council tax and utility bills was that there was a risk that that could encourage MP’s simply to take out very large mortgages. MP’s had different circumstances and some could decide that it was better for them to rent or to live in a modest house and therefore there was a debate to be had about what the appropriate balance was between what was a reasonable mortgage interest payment that could be claimed and what were the reasonable costs for furnishing a second home.

The PMS added that he didn’t think anyone was questioning the right of MP’s to be reimbursed in a reasonable way for costs of running a second home, which was associated with being an MP. We needed to look at what a reasonable balance was of entitlements under the additional costs allowance between mortgage interest payments and for example furnishing expenses. We were making clear that the costs of furnishings should be capped in terms of the amount that could be claimed at 10% of the total.

Asked what the abolition of the John Lewis list would mean, the PMS replied that what it meant in practise was that it would be for the NAO to decide the basis on which claims for furnishings and other items should be assessed. So it was actually an NAO list. Put that the Government seemed to be abolishing something without knowing what would be put in its place, the PMS said that we were abolishing it and it would be replaced by a better system, which had tougher audit revisions in it and a stronger role for the NAO. Asked who would be deciding what the reasonable costs were of furnishing a second home, the PMS said the alternative proposal was that MP’s could claim all of the additional cost allowances, up to the full limit from their mortgage.

What we didn’t want to do was create a situation whereby MP’s were incentivised to take out large mortgages. They could for example choose to buy an expensive furnished home and deal with issue that way, but that was clearly not something the Government thought was sensible and that’s why we thought it was right that there was a dispassionate and reasonable review of what the right balance should be.

Asked why the Government decided against an independent, external audit system, the PMS said that there were a number of practical issues that were raised during the course of the debate a few weeks ago. That proposal did strengthen the internal audit procedures and the overall system was being audited by the NAO. Put that wasn’t it the case that during the initial debate, the Prime Minister thought that an external audit was the best approach, the PMS said there would be an external audit of the overall system.

Asked if this reverted to the decision reached by the House of Commons last time, the PMS said that we had built on that decision. What the House voted on last time was for a strengthening of the internal audit procedures. Put that if the price of furnishings was capped at 10%, which was about £2400, would the NAO check that people had simply not spent more than that or would they go through each individual item, the PMS repeated that what the Written Ministerial Statement said was that there would be an external financial audit by the NAO, covering all of the allowances in the Green Book and not just the additional cost allowance. It would be for the NAO to satisfy itself that their audit procedures were sufficiently robust.

Asked whether the Prime Minister was happy with the way the vote went two weeks ago, considering that the Government was building on that, the PMS said that the Prime Minister said at the time that he was disappointed by the way the vote had gone, but we would have to come back to the issue. We were coming back to it with a set of proposals which were more transparent and which strengthened the procedures around MP’s expenses.

Asked why it was a whipped vote now and not then, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister had said last time that this was something we would need to revisit. The PMS said that the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the outcome of the vote last time and in light of that, the Government had decided to bring forward its own proposals.

Asked why the Government was not scrapping the huge increase in the London allowance, the PMS said that the Green Book setting out rules on entitlements to allowances would be re-written by the Advisory Panel on Members Allowances and that may well be something that they looked at. Asked if the Prime Minister would be there to vote on it, the PMS said that it was very much the expectation that he would be there.

original source.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


July 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jun   Aug »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh