Parliamentary Standards Bill

The noble Lord clearly was not listening to me. I did not say that I was accusing anybody of moonlighting. I said—and it is a fact of life—that some members of the public think that if Members of Parliament are doing anything other than their parliamentary duties, they are moonlighting. The noble Lord can argue about whether he does, or I should, take that view. All I am saying is that the public take that view and, sadly, the media encourage it. I happen to agree with the noble Lord; if he had been a bit more patient, he would have allowed me to reach this point. The present House of Commons suffers from not having people who have what is called "hinterland", or experience. I do not want to go into yet another of my personal reminiscences, but I was lucky enough to be defeated in the autumn of 1974 and went away and had a real job for 18 years. I came back, I suggest, a much better Member of Parliament in 1992 because I had had that experience of hiring and firing, working in and running companies. There is a difficult problem if we are, in either of these amendments, assuming that any minute that is not spent in the House of Commons is somehow to be treated as being some form of—yes, I say it—moonlighting. There are all sorts of occupations that many Members have. It might be charitable, it may be pro bono, but the fact is that by concentrating here on the issue of financial support, we would not take that into account. We are in danger of dancing on the top of a pin on this issue. Neither amendment really adds to the Bill in a way that is helpful and constructive. I hope that when IPSA produces its code, it will do so with an open mind on these issues. Both Houses of Parliament benefit from those who have extensive experience outside politics and outside Parliament. Whether that is past experience or some current experience is not the big issue. The big issue is whether they are unable to do their jobs as parliamentarians effectively because they are distracted either by time constraints or financial inducement. That is a genuine issue and a difficult balancing act. In my view, the key issue is transparency. The electors are entitled to know what Members are or are not doing. I hope that that will be the guidance that is given to IPSA in due course. I wait with interest to hear how the Minister intends to respond to these two—it seems to me—entirely contrary suggested additions to the Bill. In doing so, I hope the Government will take the approach that the key issue is that the electorate should know clearly what is going on in the most transparent way possible.