The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is a remarkable creation: it not only seeks rather heavy-handedly to draw a line under MPs’ expenses as the biggest political scandal in modern times, it also threatens to undermine a fundamental component of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Further, it does raise the rather pressing question as to what is the motivation for it in the first place whenthere is already a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – indeed has been one for a considerable time (the present one, John Lyon, is the 4th Commissioner). In addition, it was Gordon Brown himself who set up the Committee under Sir Christopher Kelly to report to him by the end of the year on MPs’ expenses and how they should be reformed, yet we now find IPSA precipitately brought forward and steamrollered through the Commons in 2 days as though the Kelly Committee had never been heard of. It all suggests a panic reaction to be seen at all costs to be doing something, regardless of action already being taken. That this is a political P.R. construct rather than a necessary economic reform is also highlighted by the fact that the infinitely greater excesses of the bankers, their avarice undimmed with their Bonuses are Back culture, including Hester’s £15m at the State-owned RBS, are simply being let off the hook altogether, with the Treasury risibly asking them to sign up to a voluntary code of conduct. But there are still other aspects of the IPSA Bill which are seriously worrying.

Clause 6 requires the Commons to maintain a code of conduct incorporating the so-called Nolan principles (which incidentally the House already has, adopted in 1995 and revised twice in 2005 and 2009), and since the code of conduct is approved by resolution, it will become justiciable in the courts. That could allow the judiciary to question proceedings in Parliament in defiance of Article IX of the 1689 Bill of Rights which says that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside |Parliament”. It could lead to a finding by a court that in a particular matter that might be raised as not being in accordance with the Nolan principles, the House of Commons was under a duty to adopt an amending resolution.
In addition, clause 10 allows any evidence of proceedings in Parliament to be admissible in proceedings for an offence under clause 9. This is a very wide qualification of the principle under Article IX of the Bill of Rights that such evidence is not admitted. It would mean that the words of MPs generally, the evidence given by witnesses (including non-MPs) before committees, and advice given by House officials on questions, amendments and other House business could be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings. This could severely curtail freedom of speech in the House. It has been suggested that a Parliamentary Privileges Act is needed to clarify the provisions of Article IX and to define Parliament’s control of its internal affairs. But the real point arising from this muddle is that rushed legislation is often bad legislation, and that applies particularly when, as in this case, it is not required substantively and is only being deployed for presentational purposes.

Bookmark to: