Parliamentary Standards Bill

I have a non-interest to declare. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says, the opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons receives a salary and therefore holds paid office, but of course the Liberal Democrat receives not a penny extra. Nor, of course, do I have any previous ministerial experience. That goes without saying. I am glad that those who have tabled the two amendments in this group have told us that they are absolutely compatible. I am afraid that to anybody outside this place they seem to be aiming in completely opposite directions. But at least this gives us an opportunity of thinking very seriously about a problem that has already been referred to by Members of the Committee. If one is a purist—and I am not—anything that makes a clear distinction between parliamentary duties and ministerial duties must be a step towards the separation of powers. Since we have in this country parliamentarians who serve in the Executive—that is one of our distinctive characteristics—it is rather important to get this right. If we are trying to distinguish between parliamentary duties and ministerial duties, under which heading does the time spent in the House of Commons come? There will be some fun if we are not careful about this issue. Similarly, if we are going to be pragmatic, we should recognise that the public feel some anxiety and may seek some reassurance that MPs are not moonlighting in a way that not only dilutes their commitment to public service but potentially affects their judgment, which is of course a much more serious issue. It is not just a question of whether they are paid to do something else. It is whether, as a result of that occupation, they are affected in their parliamentary duties.