Parliamentary Standards Bill

It is a pleasure, if something of a challenge, to follow the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I agree with a couple of his points, one of which is his appeal to ensure that the matter of second jobs is not used to turn this into a House of Stepford Members, where people behave in a standard, robotic, stylised way because they all come from one think-tankish gene pool. He also made the useful point that people's confidence in Parliament is not just about expenses. We need to remember that people are asking basic questions about the worth of Parliament. Here in the Chamber last Wednesday, some of the things that were said in the debate on Iraq, when points about Parliament's role in determining the details of an inquiry were ducked and evaded, gave people room to question the worth of Parliament. On the same day, there was a debate in Westminster Hall on Equitable Life. People from all parts of the country have written to us about that predicament. It seems to be the will of the majority of MPs that that be addressed, but when people see the Government question that will, and question the word and work of the parliamentary ombudsman, they will again question the worth of Parliament. So those issues need to be addressed. Like some others who have spoken in the debate, I took part in the discussions downstairs that the Secretary of State for Justice chaired, during which, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the right hon. Gentleman was very reasonable. Unlike some Opposition Members, I believe that the Government are approaching the matter not in a blind panic, but with a clear purpose. Some Members have asked why the measure is needed, suggesting that worst of the expenses scandal is over. We do not know that. The publication of last year's claims is still to come and we do not know what new confections and conflations may appear. If we recess in July, without doing anything other than change the Speaker, people will be scandalised and say that we simply do not get it. If we say that we will leave matters till the autumn, what will happen over the summer, as more newspapers drill into all sorts of aspects of expenses and so on? What will happen if the main parties' conferences, which are held in the autumn, instead of being used to set out stalls for the forthcoming election, are again seized by concerns and disputes about parliamentary expenses, with parties perhaps contending with each other about who is to blame for not dealing with the problem? People will then regret not passing decisive legislation now to tackle some of the problems. It has also been suggested that we can do nothing until Christopher Kelly reports. I do not accept that. If we all agree, as we say we do, about the principle of an independent parliamentary standards authority, and independent oversight, administration and management of payments and allowances, let us be mature enough to put it in place. We have to await Kelly's findings before we take action on some issues. Clearly, we need to introduce legislation that is Kelly-compatible or Kelly-ready. I accept that some parts of the Bill go too far and are too pre-emptive or prescriptive and will perhaps require Kelly to make particular recommendations. We should not fetter Kelly's discretion. Clearly, the Government have already reflected that view in taking action on clause 6. During the discussions downstairs, I suggested that the Bill should be entitled, "Parliamentary Standards (Finances) Bill" or "Parliamentary Standards (Allowances) Bill".