Helen Goodman

Helen Goodman (Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Bishop Auckland):

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow Mr. Vara.

I am concerned about the old-fashioned view of Members that the motion perpetuates. The role of the Member of Parliament has changed since the 18th century, when it was a part-time exercise, which those who could afford to fund themselves undertook. David Lloyd George recognised that in 1911, when he referred to the demand from democracy. Voters should choose who represents them and no one should be excluded because they do not have the means to run two offices and two homes—one in the constituency and one at Westminster.

The second and equally important principle is that public money should be properly used for the purposes for which it was voted. We must demonstrate that that is the case to maintain public confidence. The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House presented today do that. First, she proposes that the green book rules be rewritten, thus ending the John Lewis list, and that the body to do it—the Advisory Panel on Members’ Allowances—be augmented by two external, independent appointees. That has been discussed with the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend proposes much stronger audit arrangements, namely a full financial audit by the highly respected and independent National Audit Office, covering all allowances. That will be a proper, risk-based audit.

Theresa May (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Maidenhead): Does not the hon. Lady understand that the NAO already audits the House of Commons, including all allowances?

Helen Goodman:

I understand that. The NAO currently tests and checks the controls to ensure that they are adequate and effective. The difference is that it will now also consider the rules and guidance on what is acceptable, and robust management controls and processes to ensure compliance.

Theresa May:

I raised that point earlier. If the NAO is to examine the rules and the guidance on the rules, the Government will have to change the legislation that covers the NAO. It does not have the power to consider policy.

Helen Goodman: The right hon. Lady is not right about that. If she considers the evidence, which the NAO submitted, in appendix 3 of the report, she will realise that we are following the precise recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

We also propose that the NAO should report to the Members Estimate Audit Committee, which has two independent members, shortly to be augmented to three. Those proposals have been discussed with the Controller and Auditor General.

Those measures, with the decisions that the House took on 3 July, will reduce to under 1 per cent. the amount of unvouched spending, and significantly strengthen the assurance that the public can have.

When Mrs. May spoke at the beginning of the debate, she made several suggestions, which were perceived to be impractical. She also mentioned Members of the European Parliament. Eight years ago, Labour MEPs decided to have their finances audited, and they post on their individual websites the audit letters that they receive. I emphasise that Labour MEPs took that step to improve transparency eight years ago.

The Leader of the House responded by describing the work of a modern Member of Parliament. She explained why her reforms will fulfil the House’s current needs.

Simon Hughes recapped on the debate of 3 July and made a strong case for improving transparency.

My hon. Friend Sir Stuart Bell welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend’s proposals. He was one of the MEC three and we are most grateful to him for all his work on the subject. He is right that the role of Parliament is central. That is why the Government made it clear in “The Governance of Britain” White Paper that renewing trust in our institutions is essential to our proposals for constitutional renewal.

Sir Patrick Cormack made a considered speech based on his long experience and pointed to the need for appropriate support for all hon. Members.

My right hon. Friend Mr. Spellar began by reminding us of the sneer in Alan Clark’s diaries about those who buy their own furniture. However, he forgot to add that the day began with Alan Clark explaining that that criticism was made by “Pinkish toffs” who had “suffered, for ten years, submission to their social inferior”.

Clearly that is not the snobbish world to which most hon. Members wish to return. My right hon. Friend also drew on his experience as chairman of the Advisory Panel on Members’ allowances. He commented on the important fact that the nature of MPs’ work is changing and that if we want a House that is truly representative and diverse, we must recognise that in the structure of our allowances.

David Maclean highlighted the need for a more systematic approach to reform. He is another member of the MEC, and we are grateful to him for the huge amount of effort that he has made. The proposals put forward in the Government amendment build on the work that the MEC did earlier in the year.

My hon. Friend John Mann spoke about the problems of malpractice and cases where expenditure of public money has been abused for party political advantage, and about the importance of taking a systematic approach. What he said is absolutely right. That is exactly why we want to extend the National Audit Office audit to cover the systems, to ensure that they, too, are robust and that Members can rely upon them and be assured that the records that they hold are accurate.

Mr. Atkinson suggested that some sort of deal had been done on the Government Benches on 3 July, so that Labour Members would be free to vote against the MEC if they voted with the Government on pay. In fact, he is wholly wrong about that. No such deal was done; there was a completely free vote.

My hon. Friend Mr. Jones described a catalogue of problems in the last two Parliaments and stressed the importance of financial audit.

Miss Widdecombe said that she wanted to make a robust defence of the position in which hon. Members find themselves. She certainly succeeded. She also pointed to the fundamental weakness in the Opposition motion, in that it will reinstitute a two-tier membership of the House…

…In conclusion, MPs play a vital role in our democracy. They represent their constituents, they legislate and they scrutinise the Executive. To do that they must have adequate resources and they must command the confidence, respect and trust of the public. I believe that the proposals put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House achieve both those aims, involving independent external members on the panel to review the green book, abolishing the John Lewis list and providing for a full financial audit of all allowances by the National Audit Office. I commend her amendment to the House.

You can read more of this debate here