That dearest of MPs' allowances

On Sunday 1 November Andrew Marr interviewed Harriet Harman MP.

Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

ANDREW MARR:

Now you may have to concentrate on this next bit. Sir Thomas Legg's report was into MPs bad behaviour in claiming expenses in the past. Big row, lots of MPs saying they're unfairly treated, and the deadline for complaints is tomorrow. But Sir Christopher Kelly's report is about MPs and the future. Now leaks suggest that on Wednesday, he'll call for a ban on MPs employing their relatives, no more expenses for mortgage payments, and no second home help for MPs living within sixty minutes of Westminster. Will MPs get the chance to vote on all of this? There is a mutinous mood, and the woman in charge of suppressing the mutiny, cutlass in hand, is the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman. Thank you very much indeed for coming in. Can I start on the sort of procedural matter, which is of course a very important one, as to whether MPs will get a vote on this because your colleague, Jack Straw, suggested back in June that these measures would be subject, as he put it, "to the approval of the House."

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well we've already decided in the House of Commons by voting to have the Parliamentary Standards Act that we won't be deciding on our own allowances in the future. So we've made that decision that we're going to have an independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and for the future they will set the allowance system and they will administer the allowance system. Because we know that the public don't want us to be doing it ourselves. They don't want us to be setting our own allowance framework and administering it. They want it to be done independently. So Sir Christopher Kelly's report, which is going to come out on Wednesday, his recommendations will go to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and it will be for them to take it forward. So we're not playing any part in it anymore.

ANDREW MARR:

But you presumably can't stop MPs who, as you know, many of them are hopping mad about this. You can't stop them deciding to have a debate and a vote in the House of Commons, can you?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well I'll make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday, which will allow MPs the opportunity to comment on Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations. But there won't be a vote at the end of that because we've already decided that the public don't want us to be setting our own allowance system, so we won't be making the decision. MPs will be able to comment on it, which is fair enough, but we will not ourselves vote on our own allowances because I think that the public need to have confidence that it's done independently. And as for Sir Thomas Legg, he's going through every single individual claim over the last five years to make sure that if there are any overpayments, which might be completely by accident and just be by mistake, but nonetheless that they have got to be repaid. So that's dealing with the past.

ANDREW MARR:

Just on the past, how do you now regard people like your former colleague Jacqui Smith or indeed Mr McNulty? I mean Jacqui Smith said that, yes, she thought she had been in some sense shamed. Do you think these are people with a right to just say well that was in the past and carry on in public life, or do you think that they're on the way out now inevitably?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well I don't think it's for me to sit in judgement on colleagues over and above the processes that have already been underway - the investigations, you know the decisions that have been made, the apologies that have been given, the paying back. It's not for me to comment case by case. But I would say that I think that we all acknowledge that the allowance system was not what it should be. And partly this goes back to … It started off with being an allowance system which was very inadequate and MPs that had a busy caseload, like I did often …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) Absolutely. I can remember that.

HARRIET HARMAN:

Yes.

ANDREW MARR:

But sorry, just in terms of the mood and the atmosphere in the country. The word that Jacqui Smith used was "disgraced", and do you think that's a fair assessment of how people saw her and indeed other MPs?

HARRIET HARMAN:

I think that there was no confidence in the old system and we all recognised that, and that's why it's been changed root and branch. That's why all over payments are going to be paid back, and for the future we're going to play no part in it. Because the overwhelming majority of MPs go into the House of Commons to serve their constituents, to do public service - not actually to claim allowances - so we need to put this … we need the public to be able to have confidence once again, which they haven't been able to have.

ANDREW MARR:

If there's one parliamentary cause that you've been more associated with than any other, it's been women MPs and the importance of being able to maintain some kind of normal life and family life with all the pressures of politics on them. These new proposals seem to suggest a) that it will be almost impossible for people to have a family home in striking distance of Westminster unless they're very rich; and, secondly, that women MPs after sort of you know twelve hours inside the House of Commons or whatever it is, late at night are going to have to take public transport back to houses a long way away. Both of those things seem to be entirely against what you've always campaigned for.

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well when the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority comes to make their decisions about implementing the new allowance system, they will want to be sure that Members of Parliament can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster. No-one wants to go back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents see you again in five years. So we must have a situation which supports the link that MPs, the base that MPs have in their own constituency. And I do think that it's important to have women MPs in the House of Commons. I think the increased number of women MPs have not just changed the face of Westminster, but changed the sort of policies that are discussed in Westminster. And therefore …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) Sure, but these proposals seem to be going the other way because you know this is going to mean MPs are unable to have their own homes nearby. I mean this may be the right thing or the wrong thing. I'm just putting it to you that it makes it harder. It's going to make it harder for women to be in politics and it's going to make it much … the pressure on individual MPs and their family life more intense.

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well there are apprehensions about that, but Sir Christopher Kelly's report has not been published yet. It won't be published till Wednesday. And he will make recommendations in that report, which will then go to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to be implemented. And obviously they'll want to make sure that there is good…

ANDREW MARR:

(over) Can I just stop you on that? You said "to be implemented". Can they reject them?

HARRIET HARMAN:

To be taken forward.

ANDREW MARR:

Can they reject some, modify others? Can they be lobbied?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well it's … The law now states that the allowance system for the future is for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Sir Christopher Kelly will make recommendations. So he's done a very important job of work in actually combing through all of this and making proposals, so that when the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is fully up and running, they will be able to take a look at Christopher Kelly's recommendations and then they will have the responsibility of the new system. And obviously they'll want to …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) They don't have to accept the lot and say, yes, that's what we'll do?

HARRIET HARMAN:

It's entirely a matter for them. But obviously they will, I'm sure, want to draw on his important work. But it will be a matter for them to decide. Not for Sir Christopher Kelly and not for us either as members of parliament.

ANDREW MARR:

I want to ask you about one of the other specific areas, which is this very strongly leaked suggestion that MPs will no longer be able to employ their spouses. Now there's an awful lot of people, as you know, very unhappy about that, who feel that this has kept marriages together, that actually spouses (whether they're wives or husbands) have done a fantastic job for Parliament of the MPs, and some of them are talking about taking - I presume the government, I don't know who it would be - to an employment tribunal if they lose their jobs.

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well the MPs who I know … The spouses of MPs who work for their husband or wife that I know do an incredibly good job and work very hard and are much appreciated by the constituents.

ANDREW MARR:

(over) Is it fair to cast them aside?

HARRIET HARMAN:

But if Sir Christopher Kelly recommends that MPs shouldn't be able to employ any family members for the future, and if that's what the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority decides, I think two things. Firstly, I don't think there should be any shadow cast over the existing spouses, who are working very hard. I think that it would be wrong to kind of judge them all as not doing a good job. I don't believe that to be the case. And, secondly, I do think it would be fair not to sack existing spouses who are working for MPs. I think if they're going to suggest something, it should be for the future. They can't simply say you've all got to be made redundant.

ANDREW MARR:

We read this morning that Gordon Brown is going to call upon Christopher Kelly to ensure that politics is not simply a game for rich people. What in practical terms would that mean in terms of his recommendations?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well I think what that means is that the - and I think it's for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, sorry to sound a bit repetitive on this …

ANDREW MARR:

Yeah.

HARRIET HARMAN:

… but it's actually them that are going to be making the changes; Sir Christopher Kelly is making the recommendations to them - is that we don't want either there to be a situation where you live in London and you don't go and spend the recess time in your constituencies and go to your constituency every weekend. I think that's really important for constituents …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) Yes, this is …

HARRIET HARMAN:

… but we can't have a situation where you can only do that if you can pay out of your own pocket to live in two places. And that's what the allowance system is for: to make sure that MPs can be in their constituency as well as Westminster and they can have a good team of staff responding to their constituents' concerns.

ANDREW MARR:

This is the end of a sovereign Parliament, isn't it?

HARRIET HARMAN:

No.

ANDREW MARR:

This is, this is Parliament saying in the past we were able to make our own rules we were ultimately in charge of our own fates. And now you're saying - I've asked you all sorts of individual … and you say "No, no, it's up to this body."

HARRIET HARMAN:

Yeah.

ANDREW MARR:

It's up to this authority. Parliament has handed over something quite important. As politics … politicians have handed over so much else to the Bank of England or to the European Parliament or whatever, but here is another example of politicians being in trouble and saying we'll get somebody else to take the decisions for us, thank you very much.

HARRIET HARMAN:

No, it's just like we don't set our own pay anymore. That's not us surrendering sovereignty. It's just recognising the public don't want us to be setting our own pay, and I think that's fair enough. And the same with our allowances. The public don't want us to set our own allowances. I mean we're not in Parliament to decide on our pay and decide our allowances. We're in to do a good job on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the country, and that's what we should be focusing on. So I don't think at all it impeaches the sovereignty of Parliament. It's a sovereignty which is not appropriate anymore.

ANDREW MARR:

Would it be a big blow to the government if David Miliband went off to be the High Representative in Europe?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Well I can see why this you know rumour is around because he is a politician of international standing. So I think it's … I suppose it's complimentary, but we can't spare him. He is our Foreign Secretary, so he will be staying our …

ANDREW MARR:

(over) So you're not going to let him go? You're going to nail him to the floor and not let him go?

HARRIET HARMAN:

(over) Absolutely. I don't think he wants to go. He's got a very important public office and we'll be keeping him here.

ANDREW MARR:

And you're sure he won't … you're sure he'll be happy to stay?

HARRIET HARMAN:

Oh of course, of course.

ANDREW MARR:

Alright. Harriet Harman, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

INTERVIEW ENDS

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version