Parliamentary Standards Bill

I want to reinforce the point that the Government should accept amendment 68. Clearly, the Committee on Standards in Public Life is relevant to the proposals on allowances, and it seems blindingly obvious that it should be involved. In relation to amendment 26, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that Members should not necessarily be consulted, but I disagree. All hon. Members are here to represent their constituents, but many have different and even unique needs in terms of the allowance system. It is important that that is reflected in the introduction of the system. The system should be independent, but it should be informed by the variety in the House. Amendment 71 makes a lot of sense. It makes sense to consult the Revenue because there is an awful lot of interaction between expenses and allowance systems and the work of the Revenue. Under new clause 10, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is trying to deal with public concern about the tax treatment of Members. I suspect that the Revenue might not want to be tied into giving advice over and above that which it gives directly through the Revenue system, so I am not sure that new clause 10 will achieve the hon. Gentleman's objectives.