Information about the disparity in amounts claimed by MPs

I can confirm that we hold some information relevant to your request.

We have provided some background information to your general enquiry and addressed the questions you raised in turn below.

Background

Members of Parliament are neither employed nor self-employed in any legal sense of the word. MPs are public officials elected to their position by the electorate after putting themselves up as a candidate. The position of MP attracts a salary and budget for business costs, paid by IPSA, which Members may access once they have been confirmed by the local Electoral Officer as having won the election.

Members of Parliament are the official employers of any staff they engage to assist them with their parliamentary duties. Although each MP is provided with a pre-determined staffing budget, there is no one who can dictate to the MP what they should do, including how many staff to employ and in which positions.

Chapter 7 of The Scheme of MPs’ Staffing and Business Costs (the Scheme) describes the conditions under which IPSA will pay Members’ staff.

The principle is that MPs need to employ staff to carry out their parliamentary functions as MPs. We believe this is fundamentally important for democracy; without sufficient funding, MPs would not be able to focus on the vital work of representing and supporting their constituents. Without the provision of a central budget, there is also a risk that people without independent wealth or another source of income would be excluded from becoming MPs.

You may also find some of our short news articles useful for further information on what MPs can claim for, and why.

Please provide an explanation for the disparity [in staffing costs]

The costs an MP incurs depend on factors, such as the constituencies they represent, their personal circumstances, where they're based, the type of constituency they represent and the needs of their employees. MPs’ staffing levels, therefore, may differ depending on how they chose to carry out their parliamentary duties.

We have published an article on our website that explains in further detail why variations occur within MPs' spending: Why does MPs’ spending vary so much?

What your regular procedure is in investigating the expenditure choices an MP makes

IPSA ensures MPs are resourced appropriately to carry out their Parliamentary duties and assures the public that taxpayers’ money is well regulated.

All claims must be for parliamentary purposes and in compliance with the rules of the Fourteenth Edition of the Scheme (2022-23).

The Scheme sets out rules and principles to ensure MPs are reimbursed for costs incurred in the performance of their parliamentary functions.

IPSA will not pay claims without the relevant evidence requirements being satisfied: claims found not to be compliant are not paid by IPSA or, if already paid, must be repaid by the MP. You can read the guidance on our website.

Claims are subject to our three-tiered validation process.

1. Pre-payment validation: the first tier takes place before payment and involves individual checks on a sample of claims.

2. Post-payment validation: the second tier of validation takes place after payment. It is a retrospective exercise that enables us to look at an MP’s claims in context, meaning that we can identify any unusual patterns, outliers, duplicates, or repeated errors that would not be spotted through pre-payment validation of individual claims.

3. Assurance reviews: the final tier is our programme of thematic assurance reviews which are carried out by our Assurance team. Thematic reviews examine aggregate spending by all MPs, normally focussing on a specific category or time period. Any significant outliers or unusual patterns are identified and followed up, for example by contacting the MPs in question to seek assurance that the rules were well understood and that the claims were compliant.

IPSA is unable to impose financial penalties, but it can refer matters for investigation to the Compliance Officer for IPSA who can also – at the request of an MP – review a determination made by IPSA. The Compliance Officer is a separate legal entity from IPSA, more information can be found on their website Compliance Office for IPSA

Why specifically does Darren Henry require more staff?

IPSA does not hold this information. When elected to Parliament it is for each MP to decide how to carry out that role most effectively.

How many [staff] does he employ?

During the year 2020 – 20201, Darren Henry MP employed 10 members of staff, two of whom were permanent full-time staff, the remainder were either on fixed-term full-time or fixed-term part-time contracts.

Information about Mr Henry’s staffing is published on our website.

Scroll down to the section ‘Other financial information’ and select ‘Other staff information’ to view a table of job roles employed by Mr Henry.

Is his wife an employee and if so how much does she earn?

“Connected parties” is our term for immediate members of MPs’ families, and business partners with whom they share significant interests. IPSA has prohibited the employment of any new connected parties from 9 June 2017.

Mr Henry has been an MP since 12 December 2019 and has not declared any connected parties.

What auditing is carried out to check the validity of this contribution [to SNP shared resources]

The Scheme allows MPs to claim payments for pooled services. A “pooled service” provides research, briefing and drafting services to a group of MPs. Unlike other consultancy (“bought-in”) services, IPSA allows for direct payments to be made to pooled services where there is an agreement in place. This means that pooled services can be paid by IPSA either through claims made by MPs for the reimbursement of services or directly as part of a subscription arrangement with IPSA.

IPSA's guidance on pooled research briefing and drafting services, published on our website, outlines how MPs can ensure research, briefing and drafting services meet the Scheme’s requirements for funding, and avoid content that is party political in nature or otherwise contrary to the Scheme rules. The guidance also sets out requirements on pooled services relating to the administration and reporting to IPSA, and the process for setting up new pooled services.

The process for validating and auditing claims relating to pooled services is described in our response to the first point, above. Assurance reviews are published on our website – see, for example, Assurance Review: Pooled services Assessment of risks, controls and compliance, 2015-16 (updated 2017)

As the information you have requested is already available on our website, it is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means).

This means that, although we need to tell you how to find the information, we do not need to provide you with copies of the information requested.