Parliamentary Standards Bill

I give a footnote to what my noble friend has just said. A great service has been done by tabling these two amendments so that we can have a brief debate on the issues. The problem is that the underlying problems of the House of Commons cannot be tackled by what we are now considering in the Bill. The underlying problems are, first, that MPs are paid too little; they should be paid at least at the same rate as, for example, the head teacher of a school. Secondly, they sit in the mornings, which means that it is very hard for members of the legal profession to carry on practising in court. Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—then Mrs Thatcher—wisely reduced the top rate of taxation to 40 per cent, which meant that the lawyers of ability—who would otherwise have gone into the House of Commons—decided that they would rather keep the money and stay outside. Fourthly, since 1977, in my direct experience, lobbies have emerged in a completely different way from anything before 1977. It began, as I recall, at the time of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, and it mushroomed from that period. Andrew Marr’s excellent history goes into all that. To construct a House of Commons now of full-time, well paid professionals is very difficult and way beyond anything that the Bill is able to do. The Bill deals with an important subject, but does nothing that can appease the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, or me. Like him and my noble friend, I entirely agree that it was admirable that Roy Jenkins, for example, in opposition, wrote all those great books and made money in doing so; that men such as Denis Healey had a large cultural hinterland; and that many of our great Ministers have had great jobs. When I came to the Bar, many centuries ago, the House of Commons was full of very able lawyers in opposition, who acted as an opposition civil service in the afternoons and evenings. Men like Frank Soskice and Elwyn Jones would come out of court at 4.15 pm. They would spend the afternoon and evening drafting amendments, briefing the Labour Party in opposition and performing a great service. All that has almost completely gone and it is hard to find many outstanding lawyers in the House of Commons. There are some, of whom I would say—if I may—that Dominic Grieve is an outstanding example, but there are not very many. The Bill is not about this problem. The Bill is about trying to ensure full disclosure to deal with the mischief that has arisen in the recent past. I entirely agree with my noble friend that one cannot draw a distinction between Ministers and other Members of Parliament so long as we do not have a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature. It is simply a constitutional heresy to think that we could. Therefore, it is important that Ministers and former Ministers should be subject to exactly the same disclosure requirements as everybody else.