No. We do not accept that. We will return to the topic time and again over the next couple of days.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) spoke about voting against the Bill on matters of timetabling, and referred to the guidance and the distinction between gifts and donations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has said that there is a clear distinction between payments for which the Member is contracted to provide a service, and gifts and donations. If the guidance is not clear to Members, we can revisit that, but that is no reason not to move forward on the Bill. We can always redraft guidance.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a large number of questions, which we will cover when we debate clause 11. Any future change to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would be made only with the agreement of the Speaker and after an affirmative vote by the House, following consultation with both the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chairs. We will return to the issues that he raised about privilege on clause 10.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised issues to which we shall return over the next two days, on enforcement and the need for safeguards. The new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's powers are set out in clause 8(1), such as paying back wrong payments and correcting the register.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) urged us to spend more time on the Bill, as did a great many other hon. Members in their contributions this evening. I refer to the statements of the party leaders. The Leader of the Opposition said:""We will back the establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Authority to supervise all matters relating to Members of Parliament's pay and expenses","
and the leader of the Liberal party said:""I also strongly welcome the move towards a Parliamentary Standards Authority and an MPs' code of conduct. These changes should be implemented immediately"—[Official Report, 10 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 799-803.]"
That is the basis on which we started to move forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said that there was no mad hurry for the legislation, and argued for getting rid of redactions when we publish claims and receipts, and for exposing addresses. She also mentioned the complexity and the number of Committees with different functions. The issue of reducing redactions is being examined by the Members Estimate Committee, and I hope we will be able to publish the 2008-09 claims with much greater transparency. The complexity of structures can be reviewed in the weeks and months ahead, but it is important that we move to independent regulation and administration of our allowances.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Justice Committee, spoke about clause 7 and expressed concern about due process and the human rights dimension. Despite his concerns, he said that he could see a case for setting up IPSA during the parliamentary recess. We must press ahead urgently. The right hon. Gentleman raised the subject of a privileges Act, which we could consider.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) argued for more time, as did many other hon. Members. There will be time to discuss the matter that he raised—the separation of the investigation function from the rest of the PSA. We can return to that. There is a strong determination that the investigation function should be separate from the PSA's other functions.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and argued that cross-party discussions to forge the Bill were not the right way forward. He gave the example of Congress not setting its own remuneration, as we do not and will not do. There is no reason why the new developments should not interact, so the reviews by the SSRB on pay and pensions can interact with the new structures that we are setting up.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Keeley
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 29 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c126-7 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:20:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571784
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571784
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571784