www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | papers@parliament.uk | @commonslibrary

BRIEFING PAPER

Number 05987, 29 April 2020

The Compliance Officer for IPSA

By Ellen Watson Richard Kelly

Contents: 1. The Compliance Officer 2. Legislative background 3. Consultations on the

Compliance’s Officer ‘procedures for investigation’

4. The procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer

5. Investigations and reviews by the Compliance Officer

6. Reviews 7. Appointment of the

Compliance Officer

2 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

Contents Summary 3

1. The Compliance Officer 4

2. Legislative background 5

3. Consultations on the Compliance’s Officer ‘procedures for investigation’ 6 3.1 2010 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures 6 3.2 2011 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures 7 3.3 2014 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures 9

4. The procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer 12 4.1 Complaint or request to initiate an investigation 12 4.2 Gathering information 12 4.3 Notification of a decision whether or not to initiate an investigation 13 4.4 Formal request for information 13 4.5 Representations/ hearings in advance of Statement of Provisional Findings 14 4.6 Statement of provisional findings 15 4.7 Representations in advance of Statement of Findings 15 4.8 Statement of findings 15 4.9 Closure report 16 4.10 Requirements to publish information 16 4.11 Combined and suspended investigations 17

5. Investigations and reviews by the Compliance Officer 18 5.1 Number of investigations 18 5.2 The nature of investigations 19 5.3 Relationship with other regulatory bodies 20

6. Reviews 23 6.1 The review process 23 6.2 The number of reviews 24 6.3 The nature of reviews 24

7. Appointment of the Compliance Officer 26

Cover page image copyright: Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority take part in welcoming and briefing New Member by UK Parliament. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 / image cropped.

3 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

Summary The Compliance Office for IPSA (‘Compliance Officer’) is an independent statutory office holder, responsible for investigating complaints about MPs’ claims for business costs and expenses paid to MPs by the Independent Standards Authority (IPSA).

The procedures for conducting investigations are determined by IPSA, following consultation. The current Procedures have operated since January 2015.

The Compliance Officer also undertakes reviews, upon the request of an MP, of a determination by IPSA to refuse an MP’s expense claim in whole or in part.

Tracy Hawkings – the former Head of Crime and Public Protection Command at Essex Police Headquarters – has been the Compliance Officer for IPSA since May 2018.

The current Compliance Officer works 2 days a week.

In 2018/19, the total cost of staffing, legal costs, expenses and consultancy for the Compliance Officer amounted to £95,000, with the Compliance Officer’s salary in the range of £25,000-£30,000.

4 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

1. The Compliance Officer The Compliance Office for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Compliance Officer) is an independent statutory office holder. The Compliance Officer’s remit, as defined in statute, is to:

conduct an investigation if he has reason to believe that an MP may have been paid an amount under the Scheme of MPs' Business Costs and Expenses (the Scheme) that should not have been allowed; and

at the request of an MP, review a determination by IPSA to refuse reimbursement for an expense claim, in whole or in part.1

Under section 10A the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and the Compliance Officer are also required to draft joint working agreements with Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police.

The Compliance Office reports to, and is funded by, the IPSA Board. However, given that the Compliance Officer investigates expense claims made by MPs to IPSA, the Compliance Officer is not directed by IPSA, and is wholly independent from IPSA in their day to day functions.2

Alongside handling complaints and carrying out investigations, the Compliance Officer is tasked with producing an “Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA”. This is published in the IPSA Annual Report and Accounts.3

IPSA has the role of appointing the Compliance Officer. The officer is appointed for a single term of five years on a part-time basis. The Compliance Officer is supported by an Investigations Officer who is also part-time and performs the role for three days per week.4

Tracy Hawkings, former Head of Crime and Public Protection Command at Essex Police has been the Compliance Officer since May 2018. Beforehand, Andy McDonald was in post between January 2017 and April 2018.5

IPSA is independent of Parliament and the Government. It sets and regulates MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. The Compliance Officer’s role is concerned only with business costs and expenses.

1 IPSA, Compliance Officer for IPSA; The Compliance Officer for IPSA, Home Page 2 IPSA, Compliance Officer for IPSA 3 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 4 The Compliance Officer for IPSA, About us 5 The Compliance Officer for IPSA, Tracy Hawkings, Compliance Officer for IPSA. See

section 7 ‘Appointment of the Compliance Officer’ for more information

5 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

2. Legislative background The Compliance Officer model was inserted into the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, following recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). The CSPL expressed doubts about the workability of a Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations, initially proposed in the 2009 legislation. The CSPL was concerned about the existence of two Commissioners, one statutory (the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations) and one non-statutory (the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) – and the potential for confusion between investigations into Members’ interests, which might involve parliamentary privilege, and compliance issues over expenses.6 Further detail about the parliamentary debates that followed can be found in Library briefings on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2009-10.7

The Act as amended contains few details about the powers of the Compliance Officer. Section 9(1) allows the Officer to conduct an investigation where the Officer “has reason to believe that an MP may have been paid an amount under the MPs’ allowances scheme that should not have been allowed”. It is not therefore necessary for a formal complaint to be made for the Compliance Officer to begin an investigation. Section 9(2) specifically allows the Officer to conduct investigations on their own initiative, if the test of reasonableness is met.

Section 9(3) sets out the powers available to the Compliance Officer:

(3) For the purposes of the investigation the member and the IPSA—

(a) must provide the Compliance Officer with any information (including documents) the Compliance Officer reasonably requires, and

(b) must do so within such period as the Compliance Officer reasonably requires.

Section 9A requires IPSA to determine procedures to be used by the Compliance Officer. Section 9B and Schedule 4 deal with enforcement. This enables the Compliance Officer to make a repayment direction requiring the MP to repay the sum at issue. The MP may appeal against a repayment direction to a first-tier tribunal.

An MP may also ask the Compliance Officer to review a determination from IPSA under section 6A if they have already asked IPSA to reconsider a determination. IPSA is under a duty to comply with the decision of the Compliance Officer, once any appeal to a first-tier tribunal has been heard.

6 Committee on Standards in Public Life, MPs Expenses and Allowances: Supporting

Parliament, safeguarding the taxpayer, November 2009, Cm 7724, Chapter 13 7 House of Commons Library, Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill: Committee

Stage Report, RP 10/18; and Remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2009-10, SN05379

6 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

3. Consultations on the Compliance’s Officer ‘procedures for investigation’

Under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA is required to determine the procedures that the Compliance Officer must follow when handling or investigating complaints.8 These Procedures set out each stage of the investigative process, and the factors the Compliance Officer should consider when determining if an investigation should be launched.9

Before making or amending the procedures, IPSA are required by the Act to consult the Compliance Officer, the Leader of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons Committee on Standards.10

IPSA have conducted three consultations since the Compliance Office was set up, in 2010, 2011 and 2014. For each of these IPSA also invited views from members of the public and other interested parties.

3.1 2010 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures

IPSA issued a consultation document in June 2010 which set out its proposed procedures for the Compliance Officer: Consultation on the Compliance Officer.

The consultation paper proposed that there should be an initial preliminary investigation stage for investigations. This preliminary investigation stage “would have the sole purpose of determining whether the complaint or request for investigation meets the threshold for a substantial investigation”.11

The consultation paper did not offer much detail as to how the preliminary investigation would work:

2.19 It is neither possible nor desirable to prescribe in advance exactly what the Compliance Officer will do at the preliminary investigation: it will depend on the particular case. IPSA anticipates that where the Compliance Officer is not able to determine, on the basis of the evidence provided in the complaints form, whether or not a complaint or request meets the threshold the Compliance Officer might approach the MP concerned and ask for a response to the complaint; that he or she might talk to the complainant; and that he or she might ask IPSA for some information on the claim under investigation.

8 IPSA, Compliance Officer’s Procedures for Investigations 9 Ibid. The current edition of the guidance is: IPSA, Procedures for Investigations by

the Compliance Officer for IPSA, Third Edition, January 2015 10 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, section 9A(6) 11 IPSA, Consultation on the Compliance Officer, June 2010, para 2.18 [no longer

available from IPSA website]

7 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

Therefore the statutory powers available to the Compliance Officer to require information did not appear to apply for the preliminary investigation stage.

IPSA subsequently published a summary of responses to its consultation paper. It reported that MPs expressed anxieties as to whether Members would be sufficiently protected against unfounded allegations, given the proposed procedures.12

In the consultation response, IPSA set out its position on the concerns raised by respondents and stated the minimal changes it would be making to the guidance, including:

• A stipulation that the Compliance Officer can request information from any source they deem appropriate.

• Guidance to the Compliance Officer on instances where they can require an MP to contribute to the costs of their investigation.

• Guidance to the Compliance Officer on instances where they can issue a penalty notice of up to £1000 on the MP concerned.13

Responding to concerns raised by respondents to the consultation, IPSA stated that the following would remain at the discretion of the Compliance Officer:

• Whether to charge interest, and the rate of interest to be applied, on repayments from MPs.

• The Compliance Office should work to a published timeframe for investigations, decided by the Compliance Officer.

• Hearings where the concerned MP can make their representations ahead of the Compliance Officer’s provisional findings or Statement of Findings should ordinarily be held in public, though the Compliance Officer can decide to hold the hearing in private if it is appropriate.14

The Procedures put in place after this consultation exercise are set out in the subsequent consultation document.15

3.2 2011 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures

In October 2011 IPSA published a consultation paper on Procedures for Investigations of the Compliance Officer for IPSA.16 On their website, IPSA explained the purpose of this consultation was to evaluate and make changes to the procedures after they had been in operation for a year.17

12 IPSA, Consultation Response: Consultation on the Compliance Officer, 2010 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 IPSA, Procedures for Investigations of the Compliance Officer for IPSA: Consultation,

October 2011, Annex A 16 IPSA, Procedures for Investigations of the Compliance Officer for IPSA: Consultation,

October 2011 17 IPSA, Compliance Officer’s Procedures for Investigations

8 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

The consultation paper suggested a simplified investigations procedure, combining the initial assessment and the preliminary investigation stages.18

The paper asked for responses concerning the time at which to publish details of an investigation. It set out the arguments as follows:

16. The arguments are finely balanced as to when to publish details of an investigation. Publishing the name of the MP at the start of the investigation avoids speculation about whether an investigation, which is a matter of public interest, is underway. However, media speculation may result in an MP being ‘accused’ of wrongful expense claims before a full and fair investigation is completed. Conversely, the Compliance Officer could release the name of the MP at the point when the Compliance Officer publishes his Provisional or Determinative Findings. This would be at the conclusion of an investigation and would ensure that the full facts and findings are made known at the same time as the details of the investigation. Publication at the conclusion of the investigation would therefore respect the need for transparency and prevent speculation that might unfairly impact on Compliance Officer’s investigation or the MP’s reputation.19

It also proposed, among other things, the introduction of timeframes for various stages of investigations and greater clarification about public hearings:

d. Introduce timeframes for various stages of the investigation, including 15 working days for the MP and IPSA to make representations to the Compliance Officer, and five working days for the Compliance Officer to share those representations with the other party.

e. Re-order the Procedures relating to hearings to make clear that these are distinct from meetings held during the investigation. A hearing is a formal mechanism to make representations about the Compliance Officer’s provisional findings.

f. Make clear that the Compliance Officer will only call a hearing if the MP agrees that is the best way for his or her representations to be made 20

As a statutory consultee, the Standards and Privileges Committee issued their response. IPSA procedures for investigations and related matters. The Committee took oral evidence from representatives of IPSA. One of the themes of the Committee response to the consultation was the need to bear in mind the experience of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner in devising procedures for the investigation of Members.21

The consultation received five responses. In its report following the consultation, IPSA summarised the key points raised in the responses and set out their own view in light of the responses.22 Following this,

18 Ibid, paras 10-13 19 Ibid, para 16 20 Ibid, para 18 21 Committee on Standards and Privileges, IPSA procedures for investigations and

related matters, November 2011, HC 1578 2010-12 22 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA: Report on

the consultation of 2011, 2011

9 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

IPSA updated the procedures to include an assessment stage, followed by an investigation. IPSA explained the purpose of the assessment stage:

First, it enables the Compliance Officer to take an informed decision about whether he or she has reason to believe that an MP may have been paid an amount under the Scheme that should not have been allowed. Second, the Assessment enables the Compliance Officer to decide whether to open an investigation.23

In the report, IPSA set out its views on publishing the names of MPs under investigation. It concluded that the provisions should remain broadly the same, albeit adapted to accommodate the new assessment – investigation structure. Two changes were made:

a. The Procedures shall state that the Compliance Officer shall not generally publish details of an Assessment during that Assessment.

b. If a matter goes to investigation, the Compliance Officer shall have no discretion to withhold publication of the name of the MP and the nature of the claim(s) concerned (i.e. what budget type it falls under.)24

IPSA made a number of other changes in response to the consultation exercise. Again, setting out its reasons in the report on the consultation. It published the revised Procedures for Investigations of the Compliance Officer for IPSA (the Second Edition, February 2012) in the report on the consultation.25 It also published guidance on recovery of overpayments and on penalty notices in the same document.

3.3 2014 Consultation on Compliance Officer procedures

This consultation was launched three years after the introduction of the Procedures (Second Edition). On their website, IPSA explained that, during this time, IPSA and the Compliance Officer had gained additional experience and developed relationships between IPSA, the Compliance Officer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Metropolitan Police. As such, IPSA sought to review whether the procedures should be amended in light of those experiences and changing relations.26 In the consultation paper, IPSA proposed three amendments to the procedures and guidance for consideration:

a. we will require the Compliance Officer to publicise the facts of the investigation once it has concluded, instead of at the start;

b. attendance at hearings conducted as part of an investigation will be limited to the MP, other parties and witnesses (so private); and

c. the Compliance Officer will now have new guidance to follow when reviewing a decision by IPSA that a claim should not be paid.27

23 Ibid, para 8 24 Ibid, para 16 25 Ibid, pp9-15 26 IPSA, Compliance Officer’s procedures for investigations 27 IPSA, Consultation on the Procedures and Guidance for the Compliance Officer for

IPSA, September 2014, p4.

10 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

In the consultation, IPSA argued that these changes would:

a. reduce the risk that an investigation will be prejudiced by an unwillingness to participate;

b. reduce the risk that that MPs will suffer unfair reputational damage before any allegation has been proved; and

c. maximise the ability of the Compliance Officer to gather necessary and relevant evidence.

They will also, for the first time, make clear the way in which claim reviews will be conducted.28

In total IPSA received 31,225 written and emailed responses to this consultation, as well as a petition with 203,861 e-signatures. In their report, IPSA explained that the petition and 31,111 of the responses were generated by the campaigning organisation, 38 Degrees.29

In their report, IPSA stated that many of the respondents had been misinformed about the proposed changes to the guidance and procedures by 38 degrees:

Many of the respondents were provided with incorrect information about our proposals by 38 Degrees. The title of its campaign was “IPSA: Don't hide MPs' expenses” and the text “MPs work for us, so what they spend our money on shouldn’t be kept secret. It’s crucial that MPs' expenses are kept public. It’s a matter of public interest and should be kept in the public domain.”

In fact, IPSA is completely committed to transparency. We make sure that all of the data about MPs’ expenses is available for the public to inspect.

Ever since we began operating in May 2010, we have published every penny that MPs have spent on business costs and expenses. We publish the full details of these business costs and expenses every two months on our dedicated publication website www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk. These data are downloadable and can be accessed freely by anyone.30

In its report IPSA stated that, following consideration of the responses received, it had made the following decisions on the proposals consulted on:

a. the Compliance Officer will continue to publicise the facts of the investigation at its start, not when it has concluded;

b. attendance at hearings conducted as part of an investigation will be limited to the MP, other parties and witnesses, but MPs will be offered the opportunity to hold the hearing in public if they wish; and

c. we will provide new guidance to the Compliance Officer to follow when reviewing a decision by IPSA that a claim should not be paid.31

28 Ibid, p4 29 IPSA, Procedures and Guidance for the Compliance Officer for IPSA: Report on the

Consultation of 2014, December 2014, p3 30 Ibid, p4 31 Ibid, p4

11 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

IPSA also issued guidance for the Compliance Officer on the conduct of reviews.

These revised Procedures for Investigations (Third Edition) came into effect on 1 January 2015. They were appended to the report on the consultation. They remain the current Procedures (as of April 2020) and are published on IPSA’s website.32

32 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA 2015, Third

Edition, January 2015

12 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

4. The procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer

The procedures and guidance document has evolved since 2011 in response to several public consultations. The current procedures governing the Compliance Officer’s investigation process have been in place since 2015.

IPSA’s Procedures for Investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA (the Procedures) sets out each stage of the investigation process. The document states that:

… The Compliance Officer will follow these Procedures in the conduct of his or her investigations.

3. Where the Compliance Officer exercises discretion under these Procedures, it shall be exercised lawfully, fairly and proportionately.33

4.1 Complaint or request to initiate an investigation

The Procedures explain that where a complaint or request to conduct an investigation is made to the Compliance Officer, the complaint or request should:

a) be made in writing;

b) set out the reasons why it is said that the MP should not have been allowed the amount in question;

c) include any relevant evidence; and

d) be submitted to the Compliance Officer using the online complaint form available at www.parliamentarycompliance.org.uk or alternatively via email or by post using contact details available on the website.34

4.2 Gathering information The Compliance Officer may request information “from any source that the Compliance Officer deems appropriate, including the MP concerned and IPSA”.35

The Compliance Officer should then consider any information received to decide whether to launch an investigation. The Procedures set out (as guidance) the Compliance Officer’s “policy in relation to his/her discretion whether to initiate an investigation”:

The Compliance Officer may decide not to initiate an investigation if he or she considers it would be unfair, inappropriate or

33 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA 2015, Third

Edition, January 2015, paras 2-3 34 Ibid, para 6 35 Ibid, para 7

13 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

disproportionate to do so. Reasons for this decision may, amongst others, include:

a) the Compliance Officer considers the complaint or request to be trivial or vexatious;

b) the complaint or request substantially repeats allegations that have already been the subject of consideration by the Compliance Officer (unless significant fresh evidence or material has come to light);

c) the complaint or request has been made anonymously and there is no good reason to investigate despite this; or

d) there are ongoing investigations by other public bodies, or criminal or civil proceedings related to the subject matter of the complaint or request which should be completed before any investigation is commenced.36

4.3 Notification of a decision whether or not to initiate an investigation

If, following the initial information gathering, the Compliance Officer decides not to initiate an investigation, the Procedures require the Compliance Officer to notify the person who made the complaint or request. In this notification, the Compliance Officer should set out the reasons for the decision not to proceed. Where appropriate, a copy of the notification should be sent to the MP concerned and IPSA also. 37

Where the Compliance Officer decides to initiate an investigation, the Procedures that he/she should:

notify the MP concerned, IPSA and the complainant (if any). The notification shall set out a summary of the scope of the matters to be investigated and be sent to all persons at the same time.38

4.4 Formal request for information Next, under section 9(3) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (PSA), the Compliance Officer can formally request information from the MP concerned or IPSA for the purposes of the investigation.39 The Procedures explain that this notice can specify

a) the information required;

b) the format in which it is to be provided (which may be in documentary or electronic format and may be copies, or if appropriate, originals); and

c) the date by which it is to be provided (which will normally be within 15 working days of receipt of the notice).40

The MP concerned or IPSA can request an extension on the time period specified, if they set out a reason for doing so.

36 Ibid, following para 8 37 Ibid, para 9 38 Ibid, para 10 39 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, section 9(3) 40 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA 2015, Third

Edition, January 2015, para 11

14 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

If the MP concerned fails to comply with the information request within the time period specified in the notice, or by the agreed extended date, the Compliance Officer can issue a Penalty Notice to that MP.41

4.5 Representations/ hearings in advance of Statement of Provisional Findings

The Procedures state that, before the Compliance Officer can make any provisional findings on the matters under investigation, the MP concerned and IPSA should be given the opportunity to make representations to the Compliance Officer:

a) Inviting representations and setting out specific points which the Compliance Officer would like addressed; and

b) Specifying the date by which representations are to be received

At the same time, the Compliance Officer should inform the MP concerned and IPSA of all the information that the Compliance Officer has received.42

The Procedures stipulate that any written representations received from the MP concerned should be shared with IPSA, and any written representations from IPSA should be shared with the MP within five working days of their receipt by the Compliance Officer.43

In addition, the formal request for information sent to the MP should also offer them a meeting with the Compliance Officer to make their representations in person. The MP and the Compliance Officer should agree a note of the meeting. This note should be shared with IPSA within five working days of the note being agreed.44

If they consider it appropriate, the Compliance Officer can offer the MP an opportunity for a hearing, to resolve factual disputes, where witnesses could be called and examined. If the MP requests such a hearing, or if the Compliance Officer decides to arrange one on their own initiative, the Procedures state that:

a) the Compliance Officer shall set a date and location for the hearing and may issue directions for the proper running of the hearing;

b) the Compliance Officer shall offer IPSA the opportunity to attend and to call and examine witnesses;

c) the MP concerned and IPSA may be represented;

d) the MP concerned and IPSA shall apply in writing to the Compliance Officer in advance of the hearing to request the attendance of the witnesses. The written request shall include a brief summary of the evidence which it is proposed that the

41 The Compliance Officer can issue a penalty notice of up to £1000 if an MP fails to

comply [Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Schedule 4, para 7]. If, and when, the notice is issued is at the discretion of the Compliance Officer

42 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA 2015, Third Edition, January 2015, paras 14-16

43 Ibid, para 17 44 Ibid, para 18-19

15 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

witness will give and shall be sent to the Compliance Officer not later than 21 days before the date set for the hearing; and

e) if the Compliance Officer agrees the proposed witnesses should be invited to attend, the Compliance Officer shall send a written request to that person.

Unless the concerned MP requests a public hearing, these hearings should be held in private.45

4.6 Statement of provisional findings Once all information is gathered, the Compliance Officer should produce a Statement of Provisional Findings which should be sent to the MP concerned and to IPSA. The Procedures require that this statement should include:

a summary of the scope of the investigation, as set out in the notice served under paragraph 10, the evidence obtained, representations made and the provisional conclusions and recommendations.

Guidance adds that:

Under section 9(6) PSA [Parliamentary Standards Act 2009] a Statement of Provisional Findings may include:

a) a finding that an MP has failed to provide information when formally requested to do so; and

b) findings about the role of IPSA in the matters under investigation including findings that the MP being paid an amount under the Scheme that should not have been allowed was wholly or partly IPSA’s fault.46

4.7 Representations in advance of Statement of Findings

There is an opportunity for further representations to be made by both IPSA and the MP once a statement of provisional findings has been sent to them (usually within 15 working days). A statement of findings is then prepared by the Compliance Officer.

As before, the Compliance Officer should send each person’s representations to the other person within five working days of its receipt by the Compliance Officer.47

4.8 Statement of findings If the Compliance Officer has prepared a Statement of Findings, they are required to send a copy to the complainant, the MP concerned and IPSA. The statement should include “a summary of the scope of the investigation… the evidence obtained, representations made, the conclusions and recommendations and any Repayment Direction made”.48

45 Ibid, paras 18 and 20-21 46 Ibid. para 22 and following para 22 47 Ibid, paras 23-24 48 Ibid, para 25

16 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

The guidance sets out the circumstances in which the Compliance Officer need not issue a statement of findings:

… where the MP:

a) accepts the Compliance Officer’s provisional findings;

b) agrees to repay to IPSA in such manner and within such period as the Compliance Officer considers reasonable, such amount as the Compliance Officer considers reasonable; and

c) makes the repayment accordingly.

The guidance continues, describing the processes for repaying or appealing.

• If the Compliance Officer reaches a decision in the Statement of Findings that the MP concerned “was paid an amount under the scheme which should not have been allowed and which has not already been repaid”, the Compliance Officer can make a Repayment Direction. This will specify the amount to be paid and the time period within which it must be paid.

• MPs have a right of appeal against Repayment Directions and Penalty Notices to the First Tier Tribunal. The appeal must be lodged within the 28 days after the Direction or Penalty Notice was issued.49

4.9 Closure report Finally, the Procedures allow the Compliance Officer to issue a closure report to the complainant, MP concerned and IPSA stating that the investigation is closed. This report should include details of any amount the MP has agreed to repay, and whether or not any amount has been paid.50

4.10 Requirements to publish information The Procedures set out which documents the Compliance Officer is required to publish.

The items the Compliance Officer should publish, in such manner as they see fit, include:

a) the notification sent out under paragraph 10 [i.e. notification of a decision to initiate an investigation];

b) the Provisional Statement of Findings or a summary thereof;

c) any agreement by the MP concerned to repay to IPSA an amount further to section 9(8)(c) PSA or a summary thereof;

d) any Statement of Findings or a summary thereof;

e) any Closure Report; and

f) any Penalty Notice issued under paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 PSA.51

49 Ibid, after para 25 50 Ibid, para 26 51 Ibid, para 27

17 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

Instances where the Compliance Officer can decide not to publish include:

a) in the case of a Penalty Notice, where fewer than 28 days have passed since it was sent to the MP concerned;

b) where legal proceedings in relation to any investigation or claim are ongoing and/or not all relevant avenues of appeal have been exhausted; or

c) in exceptional circumstances, provided that the reason for not doing so outweighs the public interest in publication.52

The preliminary stages prior to an investigation being launched do not appear to be covered within these publication guidelines, as these investigations take place before the formal investigation for which there is statutory authority. However, the Compliance Officer is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Procedures do not make clear at which stage of the investigation the information should be published. However, in its report following the 2014 public consultation on the Compliance Officer’s procedures, IPSA stated that:

the Compliance Officer will continue to publicise the facts of the investigation at its start, not when it has concluded.53

4.11 Combined and suspended investigations The Procedures provide for the Compliance Officer to combine or suspend investigations.

If during the course of an investigation, the Compliance Officer has reason to believe there have been more instances than those under investigation, where the MP concerned may have been paid amounts under the scheme that should not have been allowed, the Compliance Officer can give notice to the MP concerned, and IPSA, of their intention to launch a new investigation or to join all such investigations into a single investigation. The Compliance Officer can take into account the views of the MP prior to combining investigations.

The Compliance Officer may suspend an investigation, if it is necessary for:

a) the completion of any other investigation relating to any of the matters to which the investigation relates;

b) the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of those matters; or

c) such other exceptional circumstance that warrants suspension.54

52 Ibid, para 28 53 IPSA, Procedures and Guidance for the Compliance Officer for IPSA: Report on the

Consultation of 2014, December 2014, para 11 54 IPSA, Procedures for investigations by the Compliance Officer for IPSA 2015, Third

Edition, January 2015, paras 29-30

18 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

5. Investigations by the Compliance Officer

5.1 Number of investigations IPSA introduced regular and routine publication of expenses claimed by MPs. The first publication of MPs’ expenses in December 2010 resulted in the official commencement of the Compliance Officer’s public role. The Compliance Officer reported that he had received 64 queries and complaints between 2 December 2010 and 31 March 2011.55

In May 2011, the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA took oral evidence from Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, the then Chair of IPSA, on the IPSA draft Main Estimate for 2011-12. In response to questioning, Sir Ian told the Committee that the Compliance Officer was dealing with about 100 enquiries a month. At that stage, the Compliance Officer then undertook preliminary investigations before deciding whether to open a substantial investigation. Sir Ian told the Committee that the Compliance Officer was conducting “around 40-odd preliminary investigations”.56

From its first full year (2011/12), data on the number of complaints handled by the Compliance Officer each year have been published in the IPSA annual reports and accounts.

Since then the number of cases opened by the Compliance Officer has been between 23 and 54, with the highest number of 54 recorded in 2017-2018 (see Table 1).

Table 1: Number of cases handled by the Compliance Officer for each year since 2011

Year 2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Cases opened

42 24 23 40 24 25 54 41

Source: IPSA, Annual Reports and Accounts

In their annual reports, the Compliance Officer reports the number of cases opened that year, any carried forward from the previous year or carried forward to the following year. The Compliance Officer reports the source of cases. They also report whether closed cases were closed after assessment or after investigation.

The nature and outcome of the complaints handled by the Compliance Office, and details of MPs found in breach of the scheme, are published on the Compliance Officer’s website. These records indicate that most

55 IPSA, Annual reports and accounts 2010-2011, 6 July 2011, HC 1249 2010-12,

Annual Report from the Compliance Officer, para 24 56 Speaker’s Committee for IPSA, IPSA Draft Main Estimate – Oral Evidence, 10 May

2011, Qq27-29

19 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

complaints were closed prior to investigation. Of the total number complaints handled between 2011 and 2019 eight were investigated. Two of these investigations were suspended, and six led to the MP accused being found in breach of the scheme.

The number of enquiries to the Compliance Officer are not published. In the IPSA annual reports and accounts, some previous Compliance Officers have sought to make clear that the number of complaints handled does not accurately reflected the work of the Compliance Officer, as many of the complaints received do not meet the threshold for assessment or investigation. For instance, in his 2014-2015 annual report former Compliance Officer, Peter Davis, explained:

A significant number of complaints do not appear in the data as they do not reach the threshold necessary to be classified as an assessment under the Second or Third Editions of the Procedures for Investigations of the Compliance Officer for IPSA. They are malicious or frivolous; or they contain no specific allegation and/or no evidence. Complaints of this nature are received almost daily, although they increase in number during periods of high-profile negative press coverage regarding MPs and in the weeks preceding national or local elections;

Complaints are consistently received about what MPs are allowed to claim under the Scheme. Again, this category of complaint does not appear in the figures as they do not warrant assessment. In most cases the complaints are forwarded to IPSA for a response or the complainant is encouraged to contribute suggestions to the annual review of the Scheme.57

5.2 The nature of investigations During the evidence session with the Speaker’s Committee in 2011, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy indicated that the Compliance Officer would report on the nature of the complaints received:

The compliance officer will be reporting on the dedicated website, which is completely separate from ours, as to the nature of those complaints. They may in fact be minor infractions that are to do with the growing pains of getting used to any system, and my understanding is that that is the case, such that they are never going to become or grow into anything like a formal investigation. They are preliminary inquiries, asking, "What’s going on in this particular thing?" So, I do not think, if I may say so on the record, that they make any statement about a reversion to anything like what we had before.58

Since 2012-2013 these records have been available on the Compliance Officer’s website.59 The records indicate who the complainant was (their organisation or if they were an MP or member of the public), the nature of the complaint, the outcome of the complaint and – if an investigation was launched – the name of the MP under investigation (see Figure 1 for an illustration).

57 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2014-2015, 3 December 2015, HC 541 2015-16,

Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA, para 38 58 Speaker’s Committee for IPSA, IPSA Draft Main Estimate – Oral Evidence, 10 May

2011, Q32 59 Compliance Officer, Details of complaints handled

20 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

Figure 1: An extract from the ‘complaints handled’ records for 2018/19

These records indicate that most complaints are raised by members of the public. Although the majority of cases were closed prior to investigation, in 2015-16 three MPs were found in breach of the scheme following complaints made by members of the public. In 2016-17 a complaint from a member of the public led to one MP being found in breach of the scheme.60

Complaints have also been raised by political parties, MP’s staff, IPSA and journalists. Three of the complaints formally investigated between 2012 and 2018 were raised by IPSA – one of these complaints was raised by another MP also.

In their annual report, the Compliance Officer usually summarises the key themes arising from the complaints handled that year. For instance, in 2018-19 Tracy Hawkings, the current Compliance Officer, noted:

19 complaints related to Office costs, 6 related to Travel Costs, 2 related to Accommodation Costs and 4 related to Staffing. 2 complaints related to Travel and Office Costs and 1 complaint related to Office and Staffing Costs. Seven other complaints fell outside the remit of the Compliance Officer.61

5.3 Relationship with other regulatory bodies

IPSA and the Compliance Officer are required by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (as amended) to draft and agree Joint Working Agreements with: the Metropolitan Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.62

The Joint Working Agreement between the Compliance Officer, IPSA, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stipulates that

60 Ibid 61 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2018-2019, 19 December 2019, HC 11 2019-21,

Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA, para 3 3 62 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, section 10A

21 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

“where either IPSA or the Compliance Office considers that an MP’s conduct justifies it, they shall refer that MP, with all relevant evidence, to the Commissioner to decide whether to inquire into a potential breach of the Code of Conduct or related rules.” Each party is required to share any relevant information with the other as soon as practically possible and are also required to direct complainants to one another’s services if they are more appropriate.63

In her 2018-2019 Annual Report, Tracy Hawkings, the Compliance Officer, summarised the Joint Working Agreement between the Compliance Officer, IPSA, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Director of Public Prosecutions:

[The Joint Working Agreement] sets out how IPSA and the Compliance Officer will work with the MPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions should either have reason to suspect that a criminal offence may have been committed.

Where IPSA has reason to suspect a deliberate breach of the Scheme, a referral will be made to the Compliance Officer. If the Compliance Officer has reason to suspect a criminal offence may have been committed, he/she may suspend his/her enquiries and contact the MPS. Both IPSA and the Compliance Officer will then assist the appropriate police force with their initial assessment of the evidence and any further enquiries they undertake thereafter.

Further, the police may receive complaints from third parties (such as members of the public) alleging criminal abuse of the Scheme; in such instances, IPSA and the Compliance Officer may be contacted to assist with police enquiries.64

The first time the Compliance Officer referred complaints to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was in 2014/15. In that year, the Compliance Officer referred four of the complaints received to the MPS, as they contained allegations of a criminal nature. Two of the cases related to staffing costs, and two were allegations that staff employed by the MP were engaged in non-parliamentary work during contracted hours.65

In 2018/19 the Compliance Officer referred two new cases to the police. In her Annual Report, the Compliance Officer indicated that one case involved an MP, and the other a member of an MP’s staff, and stressed that it was important to consider the following:

a. A referral does not indicate a determination by the Compliance Officer of criminal wrongdoing. Such a determination is not the Compliance Officer’s to make.

b. Referrals are made to ensure the strict demarcation between an investigation by the Compliance Officer under civil law and investigations by the police under criminal law. It is not the role of

63 Joint statement of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Compliance Officer for the Independent Standards Authority, January 2015 (see Compliance Officer, Compliance Publications)

64 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2018-2019, 19 December 2019, HC 11 2019-21, Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA, paras 19-20. See also, Joint statement of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

65 Compliance Officer for IPSA, Details of complaints handled

22 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

the Compliance Officer to investigate allegations of a criminal nature; therefore, it is right that any such allegation is referred on to the appropriate force for due consideration.

c. An investigation by the Compliance Officer is judged on the balance of probabilities. The police (and Crown Prosecution Service) must consider whether a jury would find an individual guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

d. The police have access to considerably more information and statutory powers than are available to the Compliance Officer. The police are therefore in a better position to prove – or disprove – an allegation than the Compliance Officer is; making them best placed to undertake any criminal enquiry.66

66 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2018-2019, 19 December 2019, HC 11 2019-21,

Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA, para 21

23 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

6. Reviews by the Compliance Officer

Another part of the Compliance Officer’s role is, upon the request of an MP, to review a determination by IPSA to refuse an MP’s expense claim in whole or in part. The Compliance Officer’s website explains that the Compliance Office will only do this if the MP has already exhausted IPSA’s internal appeals process.

Under the 2010 Act, the Compliance Officer’s review and investigatory functions are set out separately. Section 9A of the Act states that IPSA are responsible for providing guidance on the Compliance Officer’s investigation procedures.67 Section 6A of the Act sets out the Compliance Officer’s Review functions and indicates that the Compliance Officer should set their own Review procedures.68

As such, the Compliance Officer’s review process is not directed by IPSA and is not subject to the same public consultations as the investigation procedures.

6.1 The review process On their website, the Compliance Officer explains that to request a review an MP must contact the Compliance Office with details of IPSA’s review decision and an explanation of the grounds for contesting that decision. MPs have to provide details of what they believe the correct payments should be and how the figure was arrived at (if relevant), and any supporting documents.69

The review process then takes place as follows:

Assessment

When the Compliance Officer receives a Review request, he will acknowledge the request within two working days. He will then write to IPSA to inform them that an MP has submitted a claim for a Compliance Review. In this letter of notification, IPSA will be asked to confirm that the claim has been reconsidered by IPSA’s own internal review function, and whether that process has been completed.

Following confirmation from IPSA, the first step is to assess the information the MP has provided and to determine what additional information is required in order to complete a full and independent Review. The Compliance Officer will then request any additional information from the MP and IPSA necessary to complete the Review.

Review

On receiving the additional information, the Compliance Officer will consider the representations and supporting documentation against the relevant edition of the MPs' Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses.

67 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, section 9A 68 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, section 6A 69 The Compliance Officer, Requesting a review

24 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

During the Review process the Compliance Officer will also assess IPSA’s validation process, to ensure he fully understands why IPSA refused the claim(s) in question.

The Compliance Officer will then determine whether IPSA’s decision should be confirmed or altered.

Conclusion

Once the Compliance Officer has concluded his Review, he will send a statement of his decision to IPSA and to the MP. In the statement the Compliance Officer will set out whether he has confirmed or altered IPSA's determination.

He may also make findings about the way in which IPSA dealt with the claim in question.

Following the statement of the Compliance Officer’s findings, the MP has 28 days to appeal the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.

After the 28-day period has passed or any relevant appeals have been completed, IPSA will make any payments or adjustments necessary to give effect to the Compliance Officer’s decision.

Publication

The Compliance Officer will publish his decision statement once all the review stages have been completed.70

6.2 The number of reviews On their website, the Compliance Officer publishes for each year the name of the MP who requested a review, and the Compliance Officer’s statement of findings for each review.71

The statement of findings includes the MP’s original submission/ request for the review, a copy of the letter written to the MP which sets out the outcome of the review, and a chronology of events pertaining to the review.

The number of reviews published vary year on year (see Table 2).

Table 2: The number of reviews completed each year by the Compliance Officer

Year 2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Number of Reviews

1 1 No data

No data

1 8 4 0 4

Source: The Compliance Officer, Completed Reviews

6.3 The nature of reviews Each year, in their annual report, the Compliance Officer summarises the reviews they have carried out and the findings for that year. For

70 Ibid 71 The Compliance Officer, ‘Completed Reviews’

25 Commons Library Briefing, 29 April 2020

instance, in the 2018-2019 Report Tracy Hawkings, the current Compliance Officer, commented:

During the 2018-19 period, two MPs requested reviews. In one case the review was conducted and part of it upheld in favour of the MP. In the second case, the grounds for a review were not met and the MP was referred to IPSA and the contingency panel process.72

72 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2018-2019, 19 December 2019, HC 11 2019-21,

Annual Report by the Compliance Officer for IPSA, para 42

26 The Compliance Officer for IPSA

7. Appointment of the Compliance Officer

Under Schedule 4 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA has the role of appointing the Compliance Officer. There is no parliamentary involvement. This reflects the recommendation from the CSPL that compliance should be undertaken as a separate role within the regulator. The Officer is to be appointed by fair and open competition for a fixed term of five years. They are required to produce an annual report to be sent to IPSA, which will send it to the Speaker to lay before the House. The annual report must be published.

IPSA appointed Alan Lockwood as an interim Compliance Officer in June 2010. The first permanent Compliance Officer, appointed in March 2011, was Luke March who resigned from his post a few months later in July 2011. In evidence to the Members’ Expenses Committee, Mr March said the procedures for investigation were disproportionate.73 Earlier press reports had indicated that Mr March was unhappy at the requirement to publish the names of Members under investigation.74

Following Luke March’s resignation, Martyn Taylor, the former head of governance at IPSA was made interim Compliance Officer. In December 2011 Peter Davis was appointed to the role and stayed in post for his full term until December 2016.

Peter Davis was replaced by Andy McDonald in January 2017. He remained in post until April 2018. Since May 2018, Tracy Hawkings – the former Head of Crime and Public Protection Command at Essex Police Headquarters – has held the role.75

IPSA’s website indicates that the current Compliance Officer works 2 days a week.76

In 2011 an advert for a permanent Compliance Officer indicated that the salary for work of up to 15 days a month was up to £73,000. Further information is given in the application pack issued with the advert.77

In 2018/19, the total cost of staffing, legal costs, expenses and consultancy for the Compliance Officer amounted to £95,000, with the Compliance Officer’s salary in the range of £25,000-£30,000.78

73 Members Expenses Committee, The operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act

2009 - Oral Evidence, 3 November 2011, HC 1484-vi 2010-12, Q319 74 “Senior official resigns from MPs' expenses watchdog”, Guardian, 3 August 2011 75 The Compliance Officer, About us 76 IPSA, Compliance Officer for IPSA 77 Information reported in a previous edition of this briefing paper – link to original

advert is broken 78 IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts 2018-19, 19 December 2019, HC 11 2019-21,

p78 and p41

BRIEFING PAPER Number 05987 29 April 2020

About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents.

As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website.

Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.

If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff.

If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.

Disclaimer This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice.

The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.