Parliamentary Standards Bill

I have tabled a stand-part Motion to explore the ramifications of Clause 5, which establishes a statutory code of conduct under the aegis of IPSA. This part of the Bill has had an extremely complicated passage through another place. The original proposals consisted of two clauses: one related to a register of financial interests, and the declaration of those interests during Commons proceedings, and the other acknowledged the Nolan principles. Those proposals now look very different. We have lost any reference to the Nolan principles and we have lost any requirement as to the proper declaration of interests. The question of just what Clause 5 is seeking to achieve is, therefore, more than a little obscure. In its current form it comprises two points: maintenance of the register of financial interests, and the prohibition of paid advocacy. Both, as the Bill is currently drafted, are subject to investigation by the commissioner, as established by the Bill, and are therefore subject to referral to the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges for disciplinary proceedings. Breaches of this code in both regards are also, at the moment, to be criminal offences. However, yet another version of the Bill will be available for the Report stage on Monday. Incidentally, can the Government indicate what will be the earliest time for the reprinting of the Bill? Government amendments have indicated that the commissioner will investigate only breaches of the register, not the possibility of paid advocacy, and that only breaches of the rules about the register will become a criminal offence. To make matters even more complicated, there is a rumour that the Government are to remove that offence too, so that a breach of the register will also be a matter only for the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. I would welcome any clarification from the noble Baroness on whether the rumour has any basis in fact. It is extremely relevant to our discussions on the clause. The twisting and turning that the Government have demonstrated on the clause suggest that they are seeking to ensure merely that some sort of statutory code of conduct—any sort of statutory code of conduct—remains in the Bill. They appear to have lost sight of what the code is intended to achieve. Clause 5(1) limits the code of conduct to matters concerning the register and the prohibition on paid advocacy relating to registered interests. The commissioner will be able only to investigate breaches of the register. What, therefore, does subsection (8) add? What is the purpose of including it in the code of conduct? Any breaches of proper parliamentary behaviour—which paid advocacy certainly is—will continue to be a matter for the existing parliamentary commissioner and for the Commons committee. Why will IPSA be involved? My second point is intended to probe further the Government’s intentions on what the register of financial interests will look like. We have had debates here and in another place about the possibility of excessive registration requirements for MPs. Such requirements would be extremely harmful to the effective operation of another place. Will the noble Baroness give us greater clarity about what sort of registration requirements the Government envisage that IPSA will establish? We know that the Kelly commission is looking at allowances and that his independent recommendations, formed after several months of consideration and debate, will be the basis for the scheme established under Clause 3. On what independent report will IPSA base Clause 5? The current guidelines are in such a state that the Secretary of State has admitted that any breach of them would be impossible to discipline because of the difficulty of deciding whether the breach was inadvertent. It is clear that the guidelines must be rationalised; but what criteria will IPSA apply to this? Having played a part in the detailed debate on Clause 5, I will say that the whole purpose of the clause is now shrouded in mystery. The purpose of giving notice of my intention to oppose the clause was to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to shed light, not on each subsection but on the philosophy that underlines Clause 5.