Parliamentary Standards Bill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words. Amendment 6 was tabled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—Essex is a fine county. Ironically, for those of us involved in the cross-party conversations, it was originally suggested that there were two ways to handle the issue of privilege as far as IPSA and the commissioner were concerned. I leave aside the issue of evidence of paid advocacy—how to deal with obtaining evidence when a charge under clause 9(3) is being pursued—for the moment. As far as the other two limbs of what was clause 10 are concerned—it is, of course, now dead—the original proposal was that we brought IPSA and the commissioner into the ring of privilege, and it was drafted to that effect. At that stage, there was no market for that because, as we were trying to create a body independent of Parliament, it might look as though we were trying to have our cake and eat it by providing that statutory and arm's length body with privileges and even immunities that did not apply to any other body. That was dropped in favour of carving privilege out of the operation of IPSA and the commissioner. I endorse the words of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We do not rule out the proposal in amendment 6—indeed, it was in play at one point. I see the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) smiling in agreement. However, it will require some thought. Although we are anxious to get the Bill through—that is certainly the explicit commitment of the Government and the Liberal Democrats and, by implication, of the Conservatives—I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will join me and others to consider it. Contrary to the myth that this is some kind of supine Parliament, Parliaments since 1997 have been more assertive of opinion in the House against the Government of the day than any other. There is good research evidence to that effect from the professor of politics at Nottingham, whose name escapes me at the moment.