Parliamentary Standards Bill

I hope that I can display some clear thinking on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has raised a valid and interesting point. I was disappointed that he did not think that the provision under Clause 3(4) in terms of the organisations that the IPSA must consult would meet his requirement. The Government have always accepted that the code of conduct on financial interests must be approved by the House of Commons, which is why the provision is in the Bill. It is also necessary that the code should work with the way in which the House does its business, which is why the IPSA is required to consult various bodies within the House as well as with MPs generally in drawing up the code. We see that as an extremely important part of the work of the IPSA in building confidence in terms of the general public. I also think that it is important to build confidence among MPs. I do see that this consultative process is a very important part of the way in which that should be done. The intention is for the House and individual MPs, as well as the various bodies and committees listed in Clause 3(4), to have ample opportunity to discuss the code as it is being developed. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I accept that a balance has to be drawn here. We think that there is a difference between making sure that the House is satisfied with the code and that it will work, and giving the House the opportunity to rewrite the code, which I would caution against. It clearly is essential to delivering the objectives of this Bill for restoring public trust in Parliament that this part of the scheme should be seen as the responsibility of an independent body outside Parliament. The problem with the noble Lord’s amendment is that the IPSA could present a code and the House could make radical changes to it. Although the resulting code would be still labelled the IPSA’s code, with the amendments it might not be acceptable to the IPSA itself, which would be an untenable position. What would the IPSA do in those circumstances? I suppose that it might then have to undertake a review and attempt to present a revised version to the House. However, that would probably undermine the point of an independent code. We have tried to get the balance right. We think that Parliament should be asked to endorse the code and that the IPSA should go through a proper process of consultation and discussion with parliamentarians in the form I have suggested, but I would be wary of creating a situation where the code would be open to amendment and, because of that, it would not be the IPSA’s code.