EVIDENCE TO THE SSRB REVIEW
OF PARLIAMENTARY PAY, PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
1. The Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) is in the
process of conducting the triennial review of parliamentary pay
and allowances initiated by the Prime Minister in July 2006.[1]
As during previous reviews, SSRB is taking evidence from individual
members of both Houses, from representatives of various groups
and from certain office holders. In this context, SSRB invited
our Chairman to provide evidence to the review in that capacity.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards also received an
invitation to make a submission.
2. Although the primary focus of SSRB is on levels
of pay and allowances, it also has regard to wider issues, including
reputational issues. Thus in its 2001 report, in the context of
its recommendation for the introduction of the Incidental Expenses
Provision, SSRB commented[2]
that its introduction:
"will make the reimbursement of legitimate
expenses more transparent, reduce opportunities for possible or
perceived abuse and increase public confidence."
In its 2004 report, SSRB commented on allowances
more generally, in the following terms:[3]
"Whilst our task is to set levels of parliamentary
pay and allowances and not to administer the manner in which they
are utilised or monitored, we note that outside Parliament, the
nature of the various allowances and how they relate to each other
is not necessarily well understood. Questions are raised in the
media, for example when it is thought that Parliamentarians are
profiting from exploiting the allowance system, or directing allowances
for quasi-political use. It is for Parliament and the House authorities
to establish the detailed rules according to which allowances
may be claimed. We believe that public acceptance of the way Members
of Parliament and of the House of Lords use allowances requires
their use to be transparent, individual by individual, on the
basis that claims should be justified and documented in all cases,
and that the maximum available allowance is not a "right"."
3. The responsibilities given to us by the House
in relation to maintaining high standards of conduct on the part
of its Members mean that we also have to have regard to reputational
issues surrounding Members generally, and Parliament as an institution.
As SSRB has pointed out, perceptions of misuse of allowances,
real or imagined, can have a damaging effect on public confidence,
and the Code of Conduct specifically requires Members to conduct
themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen
the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament.[4]
4. In view of this congruency of interest, the Chairman,
having agreed the terms with us, made a submission on our behalf
to SSRB covering some general reputational points it may wish
to take into account in the course of its current review. A copy
of his evidence is reproduced in the Appendix to this report.
The Commissioner was closely involved in the preparation of this
and, at his request, we are also reproducing his submission to
the SSRB, which is intended to supplement our own.
1 Official Report, 25 July 2006, Vol. 449, Col 102-3WS. Back
2
CM. 4997-I, paragraph 3.45. Back
3
CM. 6354, paragraph 1.11. Back
4
HC 351(2005-06), Code of Conduct, paragraph 15. Back
|
