Tonight:
4°c
Code of conduct for MPs is dropped from new anti-sleaze law
Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor30 Jun 2009
Concerns that a new anti-sleaze law for MPs will be flawed grew today after the Government removed a code of conduct clause.
The Parliamentary Standards Bill, which sets up an independent regulator for MPs' allowances and creates criminal offences for those who break the rules, is being rushed through the Commons in three days.
But Justice Secretary Jack Straw last night signalled the Government would drop a clause which would have set up a legally-binding code of conduct for politicians.
Proposals to jail MPs for up to a year for fiddling expenses were also thrown into doubt as the Tories voiced concern over them given that fraudsters can already be imprisoned for far longer.
Mr Straw acted after senior parliamentarians and the Commons' top official warned that the code could hamper MPs' freedom to represent their constituents.
In a written submission to the Commons' Justice Select Committee last week, Clerk of the House Michael Jack warned there could be legal challenges to any code of conduct drawn up by MPs, if people did not believe it was strict enough.
He added that "in the present climate there might be no shortage of potential litigants trying to make a point", and that could mean the courts ordering the Commons to pass new measures.
Sir George Young, Conservative chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, tabled an amendment to the Bill removing the clause on the code of conduct.
He believes that giving legal force to the code of conduct could "fetter MPs' discretion" in dealing with their constituents' concerns. He added: "I want to be held accountable to the ballot-box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP."
The emergency legislation to clean up Parliament in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal cleared its first Commons hurdle last night after being given a second reading by 291 votes to one, majority 290.
Mr Straw said clause 6, on the code of conduct, was not essential to the Bill so "in the interests of consensus" he would accept the amendment tabled by Sir George and Labour's Sir Stuart Bell deleting that part of the legislation.
But he added that there would be subsequent changes to the legislation covering MPs' financial interests.
The Bill will create three criminal offences: providing information that the MP knows is false or misleading in an allowance claim; failing without reasonable excuse to comply with rules on the registration of financial interests; and breaching the rules which prohibit paid advocacy.
Reader views (13)
Wouldn't want to pass a 'flawed' law now would we...
I seem to recall that not too long ago, a law was passed banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of mercury laden fluorescents. Cost a lot of money, far more than the 'benefits' and every time one of those bulbs break mercury vapor is released at a level cited by environmental agencies as HAZARDOUS. Yep, THAT'S an example of a "good law" I guess...
- Trunk, US, 01/07/2009 01:03
Report abuse
m.p's would say that wouldn't they.
of course they prefer to be accountable to the ballot box rather than a judge and jury.
if caught they can still take the money and run and the only punishment is they have to
poke around for another trough to stick their snout in, rather then a few years in pokey on porridge.
- M.O'Brien, ;london.uk, 30/06/2009 17:10
Report abuse
Dirk Diggler, the fact that you have mentioned UKIP along with the "big three" shows that their profile has reassuringly risen.
However, it must be pointed out that there are no UKIP MPs in the commons, Bob Spink defected elsewhere.
Of those MEPs who disgraced themselves NONE remain in the party, all were unceremoniously booted out.
With regard to the expense system at the Brussels/Strasbourg circus, this is an entirely different system based upon fixed allowances. As Nigel Farage has repeatedly tried to explain (and repeatedly been prevented from doing so by the left liberal media), UKIP spend the bulk of their allowances on informing the British public about the workings of this corrupt socialist monolith.
Money well spent, I would say.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 30/06/2009 16:59
Report abuse
Promises promises promises
Another bit of labour spin to protect there nose in the trough!
- C Cusano, Bedford, 30/06/2009 15:10
Report abuse
the Lib /Con /Lab / UKIP are all a bunch of theiving crooks. Time for a complete overhaul of British politics.
- Dirk Diggler, Soho, London, 30/06/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Well over quarter of a million pounds has already been 'repaid' by MPs', but only AFTER they were caught red-handed with their fingers in the Till. "Conspiracy to Defraud" is part of the 2006 FRAUD ACT (look it up) and carries a one year to ten years prison sentence, an unlimited fine, or BOTH. MPs' claim to be "exempt" from the Law but this is only another blatent lie. PROSECUTE THEM NOW!!!!
- Frank, Bristol UK, 30/06/2009 13:59
Report abuse
I listened to yesterday's commons debate on this issue, until I got fed up listening to Jack, Man of Straw stammering along as he tried to circumnavigate the core areas of objection form the opposition parties.
Essentially, this is pointless windbagging. Despite what was said by this duplicitous buffoon, this legislation will allow MPs to commit fraud on pain of no more than 12 months in prison (6 months in reality), whilst ordinary plebs will still face 10 yrs under the Theft Act '68 for the same crime.
Jim & Mdj: Hear hear! I would go further, and suggest adoption of the Austrain syatem that allows the electorate to petition and FORCE debate or referenda on any issue.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 30/06/2009 12:42
Report abuse
Exactly, Jim, there's no need for more nit-picking legislation, just a power of recall: say 2000+ electors petition for a byelection, undertaking to share the expense of it should the incumbent MP be returned .
- Mdj E10, london uk, 30/06/2009 11:47
Report abuse
So, Sir George Young ("I want to be held accountable to the ballot-box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP."), where is the recall clause?
- The Non Shouty Jim, London, 30/06/2009 11:32
Report abuse
One law for MP's and an entirely different law for Joe Public - masterminded, naturally, by the devious Jackboot Straw.
Why is anyone at all surprised?
- Reuben Camara, Republic of Morecambe, UK, 30/06/2009 11:17
Report abuse
Ironic really, a new anti-sleaze law drawn up by Mr Sleaze himself. Straw was at the forefront in trying to cover up their expenses fraudulent behaviour.
How some of these people will walk away with a gold plated pension is just sickening.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 30/06/2009 10:53
Report abuse
Sir George Young said "I want to be held accountable to the ballot-box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP." Well of course you do, then the worst that can happen when you mislead the public is that you get a pay-off and a large pension rather than a 6x6 cell and a criminal record as any other fraudster would.
- Mark, London, 30/06/2009 10:18
Report abuse
They just don't get it do they? We are fed up with MPs making the rules that govern them. Here they are - surprise, surprise - watering down the proposed regulations because they don't want to go to prison when they do something wrong!!
- Andy, London, 30/06/2009 10:14
Report abuse
