Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

There are a lot of new clauses and new schedules in this group, but on this occasion I have a better explanation for that than is often the case, and it is as follows. The Committee will recall—in technicolour—how important it was for us to reach agreement before the summer on what became the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, in order that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority established under that Act could be in place and operating from the beginning of the forthcoming financial year, which starts on 1 April. Meanwhile, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Sir Christopher Kelly, was meeting, and as I explained in my evidence to Sir Christopher and his colleagues, we accepted that the committee might well make some recommendations that would require amendments to be made to the 2009 Act. That has, indeed, happened. Members will also recall that the leaders of all three main parties—indeed, effectively, of all the parties represented in the House—said they wished Sir Christopher's report to be implemented in full. These new clauses and new schedules seek to do exactly that. Before I come on to discuss briefly the details of these many new measures, let me also say that the major part of the recommendations made by Sir Christopher Kelly will be implemented not so much by legislation, but by the powers and duties of IPSA. Sir Ian Kennedy and his IPSA members have already got a consultation under way on the form of allowances, and much else besides. I know that they are making themselves available for such consultation and that many Members have attended the open meetings that Sir Ian has held, but I urge Members who wish to make a response to do so by the close of the consultation on 11 February. The report contained 10 recommendations requiring further primary legislation, as they relate to the structure and functions of IPSA, which are governed by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I shall now go through the recommendations, discussing first those relating to the status and enforcement powers of the compliance officer and then dealing with those relating to the new arrangements for determining Members' pay and pensions. A great debate took place—the shadow Leader of the House will recall it, because he was a participant—both in this Chamber and literally below it, in the cross-party consultations that were held downstairs, about where the investigator of complaints against the schemes that were to be enforced by IPSA would be situated. The debate was about whether the investigator would be part of IPSA, whether his role would be separate from it but alongside it—detached from Parliament—or whether he would be within the House. I shall not go back over the rather tortuous debate that took place, but I can tell hon. Members that we ended up with a Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations who, in a way, straddled both the House and IPSA. The 2009 Act also made provision for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—currently Sir John Lyon—to be double-hatted, if the House wished, with the commissioner appointed under the original Act. Sir Christopher and his colleagues said that they wanted there to be a separation; they proposed that decisions on the financial code of conduct should be returned to the Commons so that that would become entirely a Commons matter, while compliance in respect of the system that they proposed should be operated by IPSA which would be separate and removed from the House. That is what we are proposing. There will be a compliance officer, but we then need to consider who appoints the compliance officer. One of the reasons for the length of the provisions before us is that, as the Committee will readily recognise, it is often one thing to describe in prose what one wants to do—as Sir Christopher and his colleagues did—but it is an often more complicated matter to set it out in legislation that can be enduring and clear. For that reason, some of the new clauses and new schedules are extensive.