Parliamentary

7
In carrying out our statutory
functions, it is only proper that
we are held accountable. The
legislation that governs us (the
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009,
as amended) provides that the
mechanism of accountability is the
Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. But,
during 2011-12, we were subject to
additional scrutiny from the Public
Accounts Committee, as well as
from a Committee (the Committee
on Members’ Expenses) which the
House of Commons revived solely
to examine IPSA’s operation of
its statutory duties. This level of
scrutiny of an organisation barely
a year old, quite apart from the
burden it placed on an organisation
already under pressure, is
unusual. It reflects, perhaps, the
tensions associated with replacing
centuries-old self-regulation with
independent regulation, tensions
which are as much cultural as
operational.
A key responsibility of IPSA and
the Board is to manage risk. Risks
come in many forms. Perhaps
the greatest risk is that IPSA’s
independence, our compact with
the public to take account of and
represent their interests, will be
undermined. This is a constant
challenge, given the context
in which we work. It is also a
constant claim by one group or
another that we have “caved in”,
surrendered our independence
on this or that matter. The fact is
that we listen to all arguments put
to us, assess them, weigh them
against the risks associated with
any particular course of action, and
then make up our minds. Clearly,
we will often prefer one set of
arguments to another. But, doing
so does not represent any betrayal
of independence, though those
pressing the counter-arguments
may see it as such. It is merely
making the best judgement on what
we see as the best evidence.
A separate area of risk which we have
to address relates to the Scheme
of Business Costs and Expenses.
The Scheme must be cost-effective
from the taxpayer’s point of view. It
must be efficient to meet the needs
of MPs and their staff. It must also
provide assurance to all that the
public’s money is being appropriately
disbursed and used. Meeting these
aims entails a judgement of risk:
what degree of administering and
checking claims (and hence cost)
is appropriate so as to provide the
necessary level of assurance? As the
Scheme and IPSA have evolved we
have regularly evaluated this risk. We
have adjusted the Scheme and our
operations as a consequence, in the
light of our assessment of the proper
balance to be struck. In all this, the
responsibility of the individual MP
remains a fundamental principle:
MPs must satisfy themselves that
the claims they make for business
costs and expenses are within the
Scheme; thereafter, they are subject
to processing by IPSA.
There have also been a range of
improvements in our administration
of the Scheme over the past year.
They are all designed to enable us
IPSA Annual Report and Accounts 2011–2012 2011-2012