No, they are saying that the person is not guilty, according to the criminal law. As happens very often in employment law, an acquittal will not exempt the individual from appropriate proceedings under employment legislation and the contract of their employment, because the standard of proof is lower, as everyone who has ever employed anyone knows. However, I do not anticipate that this will be a huge problem in practice.
Under new clause 75, an MP who is dissatisfied with IPSA's decision to refuse a claim can ask the compliance officer to conduct a review, having first given IPSA reasonable opportunity to conduct its own review. There could be an appeal against that decision as well. So the Member could go all the way and appeal against a refusal by the authority. I hope that, in practice, such appeals will be few and far between.
Under new clause 87, which appears on page 665 of the amendment paper, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire wishes to add a new subjection to section 6 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 that states:""There shall be a duty on the Chief Executive Officer of IPSA and his staff to offer advice to Members on claims prior to formal submission and to promote best practice.""
Aside from the inevitable drafting problems, which can always be resolved, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push that new clause to a vote, given the undertakings that I am providing. I understand exactly what he wants to achieve.
Ultimately, this is a matter for the House, but we are concerned to ensure that, if possible, the members of IPSA embrace what we are attempting to achieve and that it is practical in terms of their administration. They will certainly offer guidance in any event. I can think of cases from my own experience—they are nothing whatever to do with questionable expenses, but with straightforward matters that relate to the running of my office—where I have phoned someone in the Department and said, "Is this in line with the rules? I can't find it anywhere in particular," and they have said, "Yes," and then paid it, or they have paid it for a number of years and then said, "We don't think that it should be paid anymore," at which point I say, "I'm now in a slight difficulty. Do you think that you could think again, and by the way, here is the paper trail?" There is no fiddle; we must know where we are. Contrary to what is often thought outside, we do not have our own compliance officers. Assiduous Members of Parliament are busy, and we are trying to run what amount to small businesses, while abiding by what will be increasingly complicated, as well as very public, rules.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jack Straw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 1 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c52-3 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:59:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617681
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617681
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617681