Heath and Barrett quiz Harman on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

• [Nov 04] Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): 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?

Sir Christopher Kelly deserves our congratulations and thanks. The report is comprehensive and thorough. There will of course be issues of detailed implementation, but does the Leader of the House agree that we would not expect IPSA to disregard any part of what Sir Christopher calls "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.

• . . 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.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament