As a direct result of Liberal Democrat Peers’ votes to avoid delay on the Parliamentary Standards Bill, we have been able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on Ministers to gain an extra day for a whole raft of amendments to improve the legislation.
Peter Riddell is quite right that for the Lords to stand in the way of a Bill which is intended to take away from MPs the right to set their own pay and allowances – a legitimate objective, the delivery of which is well overdue – would have been extremely unpopular. Peers have the luxury of returning to their homes without the likelihood of reproach from constituents. We have none. By contrast, MPs arrive in their constituencies every weekend to a clamour of people who believe they have their “snouts in the trough”. Most do not, but the actions of a few have tarnished everyone, and with it debased the reputation of the whole political system.
A new independent authority to take some of the poison out of this process is a good idea, but we do need to work out how to ensure it does not cause constitutional problems. We need to be clear that Parliament is subcontracting this particular role to someone outside politics, but that it doesn’t set a precedent allowing other “official” bodies to override the decisions of elected representatives. We also need to make sure that MPs not only obey the rules, but are also subject to legal processes as fair as those for any other citizen.
In the end, we will also need to find a way for to get more rational and defensible arrangements for the remuneration of Peers – it’s very odd to put the Commons in order but leave the Lords as a host of anomalies and anachronisms.
Crude delaying tactics would not have washed with the public. Imagine the outcry if Peers had gone on holiday for ten weeks with the job hardly started. As it is, we will have time to look at the Bill properly – and the Government may have to find more time yet if there are lots of amendments. If necessary, we should delay the Summer Recess and stay in Parliament until we get this right.
Well, as one member of the public I made my view known in Lord Norton’s earlier blog. How can we expect members of the Commons (or indeed Lords) to take responsibility for the rest of us if they have to delegate responsibility for themselves? To save repetition:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/07/no-way-to-legislate/#comment-6012
Well that’s a unique interpretation of events. A stitch up between the front benches of all the main parties to have a bill passed before the end of the session with limited regard for whether it fixes the problem is being painted as reponding to public concern
🙄
I doubt the public thought much of MPs proposing they should serve lesser sentences for crimes committed yet the bill proposed new offences with a 1 year sentence that would have allow them to be charged and/or imprisoned for substantially less than that available under the Fraud/theft acts or under malfeasance in public office.
If Lord Norton’s motion had passed nothing would have stopped parliament remaining for 14 days getting the legislation absolutely right but then I don’t think that is the issue. MPs want to leave and they were/are prepared to rubber stamp legislation so they can say they have cleaned up parliament which, with little time to go before the next election, has no time for any possibly/potential flaws to be exposed.
When parliament returns you will have a new report on standards which could have usefully informed this bill but by then it will be to late. Legislating ahead of a report and repenting at leisure. I realise you are an ex-MP but the point of a second chamber is to have a check and restraint on the first not to act as an accessory in whatever it wants.
Dear Lord Tyler,
‘Crude delaying tactics’? Since when has following procedure been ‘crude delaying tactics’?! The logic of that argument is that every piece of legislation should be rushed through. You may recall that Sir Kenneth Pickthorn once said ‘procedure is all the poor Briton has’. He was right then and his comments are still true today.
And surely, to be pedantic, the actions of those Lib Dem peers who voted with the Government have in fact delayed the Bill – albeit only by at least a day. How crude.
I note that in your speech on Wednesday you said that the Bill needed at least three days in Committee. This you said was your preference. It now has two days in Committee. Is achieving at least a third less than you wanted really ‘hot news’?
Howridiculous.
MPs arriving in their constituency each weekend to a clamour?
Come off it. Most constituents don’t know who their MP is.
Lady Tizzy,
There IS a clamour but it’s always from the same 6 people. It’s true of anyone in the public eye (perhaps I mean regular fodder for the Puddledock Gazette and Echo and similar local media). I’ve always thought the art of politics was steering through the clamour of the usual suspects with aplomb but I’m no politician.