Parliamentary Standards Bill

I shall come to that. There was serious anxiety in the House. I feel frustrated, although I know that it is one of those things. We are trying to get the Bill through, and there is heavy pressure—this applies to Governments of all descriptions, but it just happens to apply to this Government at the moment—and there was no time to debate clause 10. I fancy that my powers of advocacy would have been sufficient—[Interruption.] I know that the Government are to blame for the fact that there was not time, but I am making the point that I hope that my powers of advocacy would have been sufficient to have persuaded three people to vote the other way, had I had the opportunity. Of course, we will consider amendment 6, too. However, on a point on which I was engaging the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—[Interruption.] This is in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. Of course, I respect the view of the House, but I also want there to be an overall scheme that is workable and effective—[Interruption.] May I have the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, since he asked the question? Clause 10 said:""No enactment or rule of law…is to prevent"—" that is, article IX will not prevent—""the IPSA from carrying out any of its functions"" or""the Commissioner from carrying out any of the Commissioner's functions"." The House is very clear, and one way through it is to do the reverse, which is what the hon. Member for North Essex proposed and it is something that we, too, considered. The third limb of the clause concerned""any evidence…being admissible in proceedings against a member of the House of Commons for an offence under section 9."" Let me simply put a point before the House for consideration—we all have to think about this. The exact issue has arisen in the past in respect of bribery. When the matter was considered by a Joint Committee on the issue of bribery some time ago, it was agreed that Members of the House of Commons or House of Lords should not be exempt from prosecution for bribery and that, in certain cases, the only evidence might be what they had done in the House of Commons. In order to get a bribery Bill on to the statute book, the issue is being further examined by the Joint Committee on the draft Bribery Bill. We have put forward a draft Bill, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. Clause 15 proposes that article IX of the Bill of Rights is not to prevent""any evidence of…words spoken by a member of either House…or…any conduct of such a member in such proceedings…being admissible in proceedings against the member for a bribery offence or in related proceedings."" I would have accepted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), which would, essentially, have put the third limb of clause 10 into that form. Of course, I understand what the House has said, but there is also a serious issue. There is an argument between those on the two Front Benches about whether clause 9(3), which is the paid advocacy clause, is needed. As I understand it, there is no argument but that paid advocacy should be the subject of criminal proceedings.