Parliamentary Standards Bill

It would, of course, be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to withdraw subsection (8). That is the subject that I want to move on to next. The withdrawing of parts of the Bill should amount to substantial concessions, but although we were initially delighted by what he announced about clause 6, we were not aware that while he was making that dramatic concession, other amendments were being tabled that seemed to undo his concession. I appreciate that there has been progress, but we have taken 10 steps forward and nine steps back. If I may, I shall spend a few moments explaining why I think that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) accepted my comment that the new subsections (1) and (2) to clause 5, introduced by amendment 74, leave some ambiguity as to whether the code is confined purely to the issue of expenses and declarations, or whether it might go wider. I have since studied the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is not difficult to connect every single one of those principles with the declaration of financial interests. For example, the text on selflessness states:""Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves"," so that one goes in. The principle of integrity states:""Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations"," so that one goes into the code. The principle of objectivity requires us to make choices for public office on merit. I wonder whether that could be squeezed in somehow. The principle of accountability certainly applies. People in public office should""submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office."" I am sure IPSA will do that. According to the principle of openness, we should be open about the decisions that we take. On honesty, the code says that we""have a duty to declare any private interests"." So a great deal of what is in the Nolan principles overlaps dramatically with what would be a code instead of rules under the Act. The withdrawal of clause 6 does not amount to nearly such a large concession as was originally advertised by the Lord Chancellor. The concern raised by the learned Clerk about clause 6 referred to the anxiety that""the maintenance of such a resolution"—" that is, the code—""and the content of what it approves would become, by virtue of Clause 6, a matter which is justiciable by the courts."" By virtue of being included in the Act, instead of being made by resolution of the House, the code would, by definition, be justiciable. The code relating to financial matters in the Bill will be justiciable by the courts. If it does not conform with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life or with the rules, it would, by definition, be justiciable. I still do not see how the Lord Chancellor has dealt with paragraph 9 of the learned Clerk's memorandum. Paragraph 9 states:""It is not clear why this clause is in the Bill."" It is not at all clear why we should have to substitute "code" for "rules" unless, as we heard, it is purely to satisfy the impulsive outburst of the Prime Minister, who wanted to be able to tell the public, to appease the press and to ingratiate himself with the press, that there would be a statutory code to which MPs would be subject. Clause 6 may be withdrawn, but clause 10 is still in the Bill. That is the problem that gives rise to the anxiety about a chilling effect on the freedom of speech in Parliament. The inclusion of the code undoes whatever good the withdrawal of clause 6 does, and the Bill remains as unsatisfactory and as dangerous to the interests of our constituents as ever.