Parliamentary Standards Bill

I agree with every word of that. It is consonant with what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said on the same point. He listed a number of other serious flaws in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said, we have had so little time to consider the Bill or hear the views of outside experts; it is difficult to know just how bad the Bill is on the basis of the first few days in which we have had the chance to consider it. The sensible course now must be to await Sir Christopher Kelly's report and then—only then—to create a new framework for allowances that accommodates his recommendations. That, of course, might mean coping with several more months of awkward publicity, but that is certainly preferable to coping for years with what could turn out to be seriously defective legislation at the heart of our democratic process. It might also mean amendment of Sir Christopher's recommendations. It must be mistaken to say in advance, as all the major parties appear to have, that we will implement all Sir Christopher's recommendations before they are even published. The Liberal Democrats have adopted a particularly absurd variation by saying that they will accept his recommendations"" 'blind'—before we see them"." They then suggest that we should pass a resolution of the House within the next few days to ensure that that is achieved. Of course we should lean heavily in favour of Sir Christopher's recommendations, but his proposals could contain flaws or the odd shortcoming, and our job is to make sure that he has things right before we legislate. I am sure that he would expect us to do that, too, just as I am sure that he is annoyed by the pre-emption of his report embodied in the Bill. His proposals should be subject to proper scrutiny by examination in Parliament, including by a Select Committee, before they become effective. The Government's almost panic-stricken determination to rush the Bill through the House in three days illustrates so much of what is wrong with how we now make our laws. It exposes the shallowness of the Government's professed commitment to improve how the House scrutinises legislation and the Executive. And, if we allow the Executive to get away with this, that will confirm the public's suspicions that Parliament counts for little these days in the face of an increasingly presidential Government. The Lord Chancellor described the Bill as "emergency legislation". We certainly have a crisis, but I do not think that we have an emergency. I hope that the House of Lords will now scrutinise the Bill carefully and at a more measured pace. I particularly hope that it will attach a sunset clause; anything called "emergency legislation" probably warrants one. That would force us to consider in a more measured way what was needed for the longer term once we had the Kelly report. It would also give us the opportunity to implement Sir Christopher's recommendations, some of which may well have a bearing on the shape of the Bill, and to consult others, including the public. Only with the support of the public will it be worth legislating in the first place.