Commons briefing: Business questions

---

ePolitix.com reports on the growing row over MPs' expenses from Thursday's business questions.

The announcement made at prime minister's questions this week that Gordon Brown was prepared to hold discussions with party leaders over MPs expenses was today welcomed by Liberal Democrat business spokesman, David Heath.

"Not only do those talks need to place urgently, they need to be urgently reported to the House," he said.

"We all agree that something needs to be done, we can not go on like this, it is unacceptable for us, and world outside."

During business questions, David Chaytor (Lab, Bury North) called for a Commons debate on expenses.

"Isn’t there an advantage in having a debate on allowances, without the requirement to come to a vote, in order to build consensus on basic principles?" he asked.

Noting that there was a debate on the issue in January, Harriet Harman said that there had been "many hours" of discussion on the basic principles.

"We will no doubt return to the issue once party leaders have met, and once we have the report from the committee on standards in public life, but I can not agree about a general debate now," the Commons leaders said.

Harman indicated that given the "balance of issues that need to be discussed" such as the financial situation, climate change, and education, there was not time for further debate on members' allowances.

Nicholas Winterton (Con, Macclesfield) called for cross-party discussions on MPs pensions as well as pay.

"The government is proposing a 1.9 per cent increase in members' contributions to the pension fund," he stated.

"This will equate to an additional contribution of £60 a month out of their pay, when they have been given a 2.33 per cent pay increase, which equates to £68 a month.

"Isn't this an unfortunate situation baring in mind the deficit of the pension fund?" he asked.

He argued this was mainly due to the Treasury taking a "contribution holiday" for the last fourteen years.

Harman argued that that the Commons agreed in January that a cap would be kept on the exchequer contribution.

She said the imbalance between contributions and the amount needed to pay out was due to members living longer.

"In order to prevent the Treasury from taking the strain, we have to either reduce members' benefits or increase members' contributions," she suggested.

And it would be "quite wrong" to put more money from the Treasury in to MPs pension funds, she added.

However, Harman said there would be a debate in the Commons on the issue, as a statutory instrument was required to cap the Treasury contribution.

Addressing the issue of tax havens, being discussed at the G20 summit, Denis MacShane (Lab, Rotherham) called for a change to force MPs to declare whether they received funds from beneficiary trusts.

Shadow leader of the Commons, Alan Duncan, called for a statement from the prime minster on the "conduct and confidence of the increasingly tarnished" Lord Myners.

Defending the financial services secretary, Harman said Lord Myners e had helped to save RBS as it was "falling off the edge of a cliff, in stark contrast to those running it".

Turning to the investigation in to Conservative shadow immigration spokesman Damian Green, Duncan said there was "confusion and anger over ground rules that govern privilege when a member is directly involved".

He criticised Harman for refusing to sign a Commons motion that called for the matter to be referred to the committee on standards and privileges.

Harman said that she refused to support the motion because it was not a matter for a Commons committee to decide.

"It is matter for police to investigate criminal matters, and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide what is evidence is necessary to bring before court to secure conviction and for a court to decide what is admissible by way of evidence," she explained.

"If the House want so to assert its privilege in court, it can do so via the office of attorney general."

Duncan also returned to criticism of regional select committees.

"The whole set up is becoming ever more farcical," he told he House.

"The North East committee is in disarray, the South West committee is barely quorate, and the West Midlands committee was cancelled because members were not prepared to turn up."

This sentiment was echoed by Patrick Cormack (Con, South Staffordshire), who demanded the government move away from the "ludicrous spectacle" of "one or two members purporting to be a committee when they are not".

Rejecting the criticism, Harman said there would be more MPs on the committees if opposition MPs chose to go along.

"They can not complain there are too few members on committees, if they do not turn up," she said.

Addressing MPs concerns over the funding for further education college construction programmes, Harman acknowledged there has been "mismanagement" and noted that the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council had resigned.

However she said the Conservative party "do not have a shred of credibility when their policy is to cut £600m from the programme".

Duncan accused the government of leaving Parliamentary business in a "chaotic state".

He criticised the government for failing to publish the Equality Bill and Child Poverty Bill announced in Queens Speech, as well as the promised draft Floods and Water Bill.

Duncan also asked when there would be a statement on the Heritage Protection Bill, and when the members of the autism Bill committee would be announced.

Heath joined in the criticism of Parliamentary management, accusing the government conducting "politics of the kindergarten" over the handling of the Apprenticeships Bill.

The Bill committee was made to sit for 17 hours by government whips.

Harman said the Bill had over 200 clauses, and that "insufficient progress was being made".