I am truly glad that there is no difference of opinion on the Benches opposite about whether ministerial salaries should be declared in the Register of Interests. That point has been clearly explained. I recall the trenchant views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, at Second Reading. I am very grateful to him for drawing our attention to Clause 5(1), which explicitly states that it will be for IPSA itself to draw up the code. I trust that it will be able to bring about the relevant changes, if that is what the noble Lord wishes. In doing so, IPSA will consult relevant parties, but the final result will not necessarily be the same as the current code. I think that that addresses that question.
Amendment 38A appears to say that the interests of a Minister are not to be registered, but Amendment 42 would require the specified financial interests to be registered to include, ""payment as, and hours worked as, a Minister"."
The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in that regard. We do not think that it is necessary to spell this out in the Bill but we are certainly opposed to any suggestion that working as a Minister is a second job in the same way as an interest outside Parliament would be. That is not to say that MPs should not have a very wide hinterland.
There is, of course, no mystery about the work of Ministers. I fully recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Ministers can and do look after the interests of their constituents as well as fulfilling their ministerial tasks. That Ministers are Ministers is a matter of public record, as are their salaries, although I accept that the hours they work are not. The key difference between a Minister, a lawyer and an accountant is that a Minister carries out his or her work within Parliament. It is an integral part of our system that Ministers are full Members of Parliament. As noble Lords have said, we are not like France; we do not have the separation of powers. We value the connection that continuing to be a constituency MP gives those who serve as Ministers in the House of Commons. That is something that we all agree on. It enhances the contribution Members make as MPs and as Ministers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the code will address the issue of transparency. That is of fundamental importance for our democratic system. However, I reiterate that nothing in the Bill prevents MPs having outside interests, as the other place has already decided; it simply provides that such interests should be registered so that there is no ambiguity about an MP’s motives for raising a matter. As I explained earlier, a new code will be devised by IPSA. With that, I trust that both these amendments will be withdrawn.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1136-7 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:51:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577527
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577527
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577527