Parliamentary Standards Bill

I have clearly said that in Northern Ireland, for instance, we need to set a clear point in the electoral cycle when dual mandates end, whether that be at the next Westminster election, so that people do not continue to hold both positions, or at another time. I have already made it clear in my constituency and elsewhere that if I stand at the next Westminster election, I will not continue as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Those standards will be reflected in our submissions to the Kelly review. Unfortunately, the Kelly review is taking evidence in Belfast on Wednesday, when the House will be scrutinising the Bill in Committee. Indeed, there will also be other legislation to consider, but we cannot be in both places, so we are left with a dilemma. Do we attend Kelly to show our interest in that process or do we attend here to show our due diligence in relation to parliamentary standards? Indeed, that is a problem that does not even take in the question of membership of the Assembly or anything else. It is important that we should take care in respect of this legislation. There are things that will need to be tweaked. There are also things where we perhaps do not need to press the "delete" button, but where we need to press the "save in draft" button, so that we can return to them post Kelly. There are also some things missing from the Bill that need to be there. For instance, there is no reference at all to taxation. It is quite clear that part of the public scandal and concern about MPs' expenses relates to capital gains tax on properties that were funded—or partly funded—through allowances from the House. There is also the question of work-related expenses that might be claimed. We know that some exotic and expensive items were refused by the Fees Office, but perhaps they were claimed—or could be claimed—as work-related expenses. IPSA needs to provide guidance to Members on what is appropriate in that respect and to engage directly with Revenue and Customs, reference to which is also missing from the Bill. There are references to the Treasury and so on, but not to Revenue and Customs. There should perhaps also be references in the Bill to the Cabinet Office, because there were clearly issues in relation to the expenses of Ministers, particularly where grace and favour homes were in play. The Cabinet Office has a role, because if Ministers receive expenses and allowances in that way, the Executive have to take some responsibility for administering them and for navigating that particular twilight zone, rather than just leaving that to IPSA. Therefore, the role of the Cabinet Office in all this needs to be reflected too. If we took the time that some hon. Members seem to be suggesting, the public would think not that we were taking care, but that we do not care. They would think that we did not understand their shock and disgust. The question is not whether the Government are listening to the House, which is the test that some hon. Members have applied this evening. The question is whether the House is listening to the country.