MPs’ expenses: Watchdog announces review of spending on PR firms

The Parliamentary spending watchdog has announced a review of how MPs claim expenses following an investigation by openDemocracy.

In February, we revealed how MPs had claimed more than £1m from the public purse for PR agencies and private spin doctors, with contracts being swept up by a band of little-known media firms in Westminster.

In many cases, the companies enjoyed close personal ties to MPs themselves, with lax rules allowing contracts to be awarded without competitive tender.

MPs are not allowed to claim expenses for political campaigning. But our investigation found that social media content created by these PR firms was not being checked by regulators – leaving open the possibility that taxpayers’ money could be improperly used to help promote sitting MPs in the next election.

One company that has received thousands of pounds from expenses had boasted it could boost MPs’ “incumbency”. Another said it helped politicians with “fighting local and national campaigns”.

Now, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) – which governs MPs’ expenses – has said it will “commit to a review” of the issue as a result of openDemocracy’s findings.

In a letter seen by openDemocracy, IPSA’s chief executive Ian Todd admitted that the watchdog does not currently check whether PR agencies paid using MPs’ expenses are actually producing political campaign material, which would be a clear breach of the rules.

“It is important that our regulation remains risk-based and proportionate,” he said. “Historically we have not looked at the underlying materials [created by PR firms] unless there is a specific cause for concern.”

But Todd added: “I am happy to commit to a review of how the bought-in services provisions are operating, including the procurement thereof and the validation of expenditure.”

His comments were made in a reply to Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams, who had written to IPSA following our investigation.

“I believe the current procedure risks allegations of cronyism, or at best a perception or suspicion of such, with a resulting corrosive effect on our politics,” Williams said. “This may be particularly acute at election time.”

A spokesperson for IPSA today told openDemocracy that the scope of the review is still being determined and that they couldn’t comment further.