This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8124696.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Ministers reject expenses delays MPs' code of conduct plan dropped
(about 10 hours later)
Ministers have rejected claims that reforms of Parliament to deal with the expenses crisis are being rushed through and threaten its sovereignty. The government has dropped plans for a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs after fears it would prompt a flood of legal challenges.
Jack Straw said it was "imperative" to agree an external body for expenses regulation before the end of July to boost public confidence in Parliament. The idea had been a key part of the government's plans to "clean-up" politics after the expenses scandal.
But the justice secretary dropped plans for an all-encompassing code of conduct for MPs, saying it was not "essential". But former standards watchdog Sir Philip Mawer warned it was a recipe for "delay, cost and confusion".
Meanwhile, ex-sleaze watchdog Elizabeth Filkin said the crisis was avoidable. Ministers are to press ahead with plans to set up an external body to run the MPs' expenses system.
'Insular place' Only three days of debate have been scheduled for the Parliamentary Standards Bill as the government wants it passed before MPs leave for the summer recess on 21 July.
Ms Filkin, who was removed as parliamentary standards commissioner in 2001 after angering many MPs through criticism of their conduct, said a series of "sensible steps" would have prevented the affair. Lawyers' 'field day'
She told the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is looking into MPs' pay and expenses, that Parliament was a "very insular place and people feel entitled to all sorts of privileges of one kind or another because of their position". The bill would hand the day-to-day administration and oversight of MPs' expenses to an external body.
Earlier Sir Philip, the former Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, told a separate inquiry into MPs' expenses the legislation was "confused" and warned that a legally binding code of conduct could create a "rules-based system which lawyers will have a field day with and which may well cost the public more".
The Clerk of the House - the Commons' top official Michael Jack - has also warned of legal challenges to any code drawn up by MPs which "in the present climate" might mean "no shortage of potential litigants trying to make a point".
There are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through Sir George Young MPThere are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through Sir George Young MP
It was sad that "people at the top" had not ensured appropriate systems when it came to expenses, she added. MPs debating the bill on Monday raised concerns that lack of sufficient scrutiny will lead to long-term damage to how the institution functions.
She was speaking as MPs debated proposed legislation to hand the day-to-day administration and oversight of their expenses to an external body.
Only three days of debate have been scheduled for Parliamentary Standards Bill in the Commons, with ministers wanting it on the statute book before MPs break up for summer recess on 21 July.
This has led to claims that the legislation is being railroaded through Parliament and lack of sufficient scrutiny will lead to long-term damage to how the institution functions.
"There are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through," Sir George Young, chairman of the committee on standards and privileges, said."There are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through," Sir George Young, chairman of the committee on standards and privileges, said.
Mr Straw said the measures had to be agreed quickly because of Parliament's "collective" failure over expenses. Earlier he said he wanted to be "held accountable to the ballot box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP".
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the measures had to be agreed quickly because of Parliament's "collective" failure over expenses.
'Consensus' decision
"The expenses scandal was not just a matter of a couple of headlines," he said."The expenses scandal was not just a matter of a couple of headlines," he said.
"It has engulfed this House and its reputation. We face a really serious problem in terms of rebuilding public confidence.""It has engulfed this House and its reputation. We face a really serious problem in terms of rebuilding public confidence."
The bill passed its second reading with a majority of 290. But he agreed to drop a clause introducing the code of conduct on non-financial aspects of MPs' behaviour which could have stipulated, for instance, how many surgery hours they offer.
Consensus move
But Mr Straw made a concession by agreeing to drop a clause introducing a code of conduct on non-financial aspects of MPs' behaviour which could have stipulated, for instance, how many surgery hours they offer.
He said he was acting in the "interest of consensus" after several MPs and Parliamentary officials had expressed concerns about the measure's likely consequences.
Having offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation Jack StrawHaving offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation Jack Straw
Former parliamentary standards commissioner Sir Philip Mawer said it could spawn a flood of legal cases against MPs, hamper their freedom of expression and tilt the balance between Parliament and the courts. He said he was acting in the "interest of consensus" after several MPs and Parliamentary officials had expressed concerns about the measure's likely consequences.
For the Conservatives, Shadow Commons leader Alan Duncan welcomed the climb-down, saying "we can't end the culture of blank cheques to MPs, only to open up a culture of blank cheques for lawyers". The bill passed its second reading with a majority of 290.
For the Conservatives, Shadow Commons Leader Alan Duncan welcomed the climb-down, saying "we can't end the culture of blank cheques to MPs, only to open up a culture of blank cheques for lawyers".
However, Mr Straw refused to give ground over the inclusion of three new criminal offences in the bill governing MPs' financial dealings.However, Mr Straw refused to give ground over the inclusion of three new criminal offences in the bill governing MPs' financial dealings.
These would see fines and a potential 12-month jail sentence for MPs who area found to have knowingly made false claims, failed to fully declare outside financial interests or breached the rules on paid advocacy.These would see fines and a potential 12-month jail sentence for MPs who area found to have knowingly made false claims, failed to fully declare outside financial interests or breached the rules on paid advocacy.
Several Tory MPs said the offences were unnecessary and redundant as the offences were already covered by existing laws on fraud and theft applicable to MPs.Several Tory MPs said the offences were unnecessary and redundant as the offences were already covered by existing laws on fraud and theft applicable to MPs.
"Having offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation and, above all, fundamental to ensuring public confidence in this scheme," Mr Straw said."Having offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation and, above all, fundamental to ensuring public confidence in this scheme," Mr Straw said.
Meanwhile, during a separate independent inquiry into MPs expenses, another former parliamentary standards commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin, said the crisis was avoidable.
She was removed as commissioner in 2001 after angering many MPs through criticism of their conduct.
She told the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is looking into MPs' pay and expenses, that Parliament was a "very insular place and people feel entitled to all sorts of privileges of one kind or another because of their position".
She said it was "very sad" that "people at the top" did not do enough to ensure "the right sort of standards".