aop
ad

MPs' expenses body expensive to run

by Our Parliamentary Correspondent

More from this author

26 Sep 2011

Margaret Hodge ourcreativetalent flickr photostream

THE BODY SET UP to clean up the Commons expenses scandal is expensive to run and not yet value for money, according to the MPs' own Public Accounts Committee.

Chair Margaret Hodge (pictured) said 38% of claims checked by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) are for less money than the average cost of administering them.

And she said a 15% fall in the amount paid out cannot be claimed as an efficiency saving while many MPs report they are put off from claiming legitimate expenses because the claims process is so bureaucratic.

But in rare praise from a usually highly critical committee, Hodge said IPSA had done "a good job" getting the new system for verifying expenses running on time and paying claims accurately. And there was evidence public confidence in MPs was starting to improve.

In 2010-11, IPSA paid out over £118 million in total, comprising £98.6 million in salaries for MPs and their staff, and £19.5 million in MPs' expenses.

IPSA assessed 99.7% of all MPs' claims are within the rules and when claims are rejected it is overwhelmingly due to administrative error. And it found there had been no abuse of the system.

IPSA said the report demonstrated huge progress in a short time and said it confirmed costs are in line with other UK legislatures, adding: We are committed to building on this impressive start and further improving our efficiency and effectiveness."

Image credit: Margaret Hodge ourcreativetalent flickr photostream

Visitor comments Add your comment

Transaction processing cost too high

The vast majority of all expenses are low value transactions, but to have 38% of claims costing more to administer than the value of the expense is ridiculous. This suggests that the cost per transaction is still astronomically high. One of the councils we work with has cut the cost of processing a transaction down to a tiny 25p, and certainly don’t have many expenses where the claim is for less than that! I applaud the IPSA for getting 99.7% of claims within the rules, but are they paying over the odds when breakeven should be closer to 2 months than 2 years?

Posted by: Vicki Scheele, 26 Sep 2011 | 15:05

Add your comment
display:none

Add your comment

We won't publish your address


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

Submit

Search thousands of financial jobs:

Information currently unavailable.

Search thousands of financial jobs:

Newsletters

Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials

Careers

Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you

Briefings

Supplier Statement Reconciliations cover

Supplier statement reconciliations: Manual chore or critical value adding process?

By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.

7 Building Blocks cover

7 building blocks for business growth

Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities