The saga of the Parliamentary Standards Bill continues. 
On my way to a meeting this morning, a former Labour Cabinet minister saw me to say what an awful Bill it was. This afternoon, a senior cross-bench peer summed up his view of the Bill and the way it was being dealt with. He was succinct: “What a shambles”. His view appears to be widely held.
The Bill has a second day in committee tomorrow. The fact that it has a second day is not a concession but a necessity. We are dealing with the content, but fundamental problems remain in terms of the process.
The first and fundamental point is that no clear case has been made for rushing it through. The justification given by the Leader of the House last week was “The public want action and they want it now”. In other words, the ‘something must be done’ approach. The public may want action, but neither the Government nor anyone who voted with them to fast-track the Bill have offered evidence that this Bill constitutes the action that the public want. There has been no time to consult them.
The second point is that no clear reason has been offered as to why it is necessary ahead of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. This point is actually becoming stronger in light of the amendments accepted by the Government. The more the Bill becomes primarily a measure for creating a body to administer pay and allowances, the less obvious the reason for pre-empting the recommendations of the Committee. What if the Committee recommends (as it may) a flat-rate salary and no allowances for MPs? What then do we do?
The third point is the obvious one that the House is being denied adequate time for reflection. The Bill went into committee yesterday. The previous day, a letter from the Leader of the House was circulated, accompanied by the amendments that the Government was tabling. This gave hardly any time for members to consider them. Then early Monday evening we were told the Government were tabling more amendments! There is a second day in committee tomorrow: that is, Thursday. The Government want the House to take Report stage and Third Reading on Monday – a gap of one working day between Committee and Report stage – with any ping pong between the Houses taking place on Tuesday, the last day of sitting before the summer recess.
We are legislating in haste – setting aside our normal rules – and for no clearly demonstrated reason. We may have been given a reason for a Bill, but not for this Bill. We may make the Bill less bad between now and next week, but that doesn’t address the fundamental point that we don’t know why we are passing it. This is no way to legislate.
Actually, I think you should kick it into the long grass, and think about it properly after the summer recess, when everyone’s heads will be cooler.
The public[1] want parliament to sort itself out, but we[1] don’t really give a fig whether you do it now or in the autumn, as long as no-one buys duck houses on expenses over the summer break.
[1]OK, me 🙂
Matthew: You constitute one of the few voices of the public that we have heard! The debate rather reinforces the view that we assume we know what the public want without bothering to ask them.
Lord Norton: I think you are too kind in assuming that MPs are acting as they are because they think they know and are responding to the public voice. I remain unconvinced they have moved beyond ‘something must be done’ and a desperate desire not to give any other party the chance to claim they are blocking reform. So I don’t see their view of what the public wants – real or perceived – is therefore driving this.
Looking at the Lords’ votes and the speeches I can’t help but feel that the ex-MPs in the house seem to remember too well their time in and the interests of that house rather than those of parliament as a whole or the house in which they now sit.
Lord Norton: “The more the Bill becomes primarily a measure for creating a body to administer pay and allowances”
Yes! But why create a body when we could put some flesh on the body of an emasculated House of Lords to do the job instead.
What is the difference between an unelected public body and the HoL except to say, that the Commons cannot manipulate in any way, Parliament’s Senior Service.
Why not formalise the process by changing the constitution?
What do we hear from a flawless infallible Commons?
Never! Never! Never!
Then perhaps the House of Commons Disqualification Act needs amending to better reflect the needs and integrity of Parliament in those who are elected to it.
From the HC 1979 link below:
“Are there not already too many Ministers, too many civil servants and too many quangos in this over-governed and over-taxed country?”
Ref: British House of Commons 2005: A Brief History.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/British_House_of_Commons
Ref: HC Deb 13 March 1979 vol 964 cc262-9: Mr Michael Latham
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/mar/13/house-of-commons-disqualification-act
From the public’s perception, the moment (or, to be fair, the weeks) have now passed. The ubiquitous bore in every bar whose sole topic of conversation is that all politicians are only in it for what they can get has had his spring of glory. His point has been proved day in, day out.
What is needed, more than fast-track legislation and certainly more than a new Quango, is cultural change.
Certainly I know what I’m expecting, which is that whatever happens with expenses and allowances, there will be a substantial salary increase for MPs as a result of the new Quango. Compared to other western European nations, a good case can be made for it. But, independent or not, such a move will provide meat aplenty for the bar-room bore.
I don’t think one can legislate away the spring, fast-track or otherwise. And I do have an uncertain feeling things may get worse…
Croft and Stephenpaterson: Thanks for the comments. I agree with both of you. I think we remain in a ‘something must be done’ mode. I made this point, very briefly, in today’s deliberations on the Bill. The Leader of the House keeps saying that the Bill is in response to the public demand for action. I pointed out that if it was a response to the public mood, it would be an Abolition of MPs’ Allowances Bill. I agree things may get worse, especially if the Kelly committee recommends a substantial salary increase, albeit in return getting rid of additional cost allowance. However, it may be worth enduring a few days of bad headlines for the sake of long-term stability. Of course, if the Kelly committee does recommend that, it makes the Parliamentary Standards Bill a bit of a nonsense.
I suspect the journalists are waiting with anticipation to find out which ‘Sir Humphrey’ will be appointed to administer the allowances. How soon before we see stories about ‘him’ getting the pro rata pay of the Prime Minister, naturally a golden public sector pension, perhaps a London Allowance (you can’t expect ‘him’ to live there!) and no doubt ‘incidental’ expenses. Of course that’s before we get to the rest of members. Could we save time and have a provision in the bill to setup a body to pay and audit the expenses of the Parliamentary Standards Authority!!
For the press this is truly the gift that keeps on giving…
You can’t make a crooked man straight. Blood is what the public want. Fraud has been committed and a swift prosecution will help remove the worst offenders.
The idea that a bill of rules saying that something is wrong when everyone knows it was already illegal will not turn a criminal into an honest man. Stop wasting our time with trivial rule sets and quangos and start down the road of actual cultural change.
At this point I expect nothing other than more of the same. Knowing openly your politicians are corrupt is at least the first step to realising there isn’t a thing we can do about it. This bill just bursts the final illusion of any sense of control over our politicians even when we catch them with their hands in the cookie jar. I am not sure whether to be grateful or not for that knowledge. Maybe you should be making a law that makes it illegal for me not to be grateful quickly before my dissent spreads.