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/8126101.stm

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Questions over MP 'clean-up' bill Reforms 'could harm MPs' rights'
(about 5 hours later)
Plans to "clean up politics" in the wake of the expenses scandal are being debated by MPs for the second day. Measures to reform Parliament after the expenses scandal could violate MPs' human rights, it has been claimed.
On Monday the Parliamentary Standards Bill passed its first Commons hurdle but concerns have been raised that the bill is being "rushed through". The right of MPs to a fair hearing if accused of misconduct could be violated under a planned new system of external regulation, MPs and peers have warned.
Minister Jack Straw agreed to drop a clause that would have made the MPs' code of conduct legally binding. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights urged greater safeguards.
The government says it will try to reintroduce it but apply it only to MPs' financial matters. MPs are debating reform plans for a second day as ministers seek to get new laws passed before Parliament breaks up for its summer recess on 21 July.
The prime minister's spokesman said: "For us the key part was always the part that relates to financial matters and that remains". Right of appeal
Independent body On Monday the Parliamentary Standards Bill passed its first Commons hurdle despite widespread concerns that the legislation was being unduly rushed through Parliament.
Wider plans for a legally binding code of conduct covering other aspects of MPs' behaviour were dropped amid concerns it would prompt a flood of legal challenges. Ministers have made concessions - including the ditching of a clause that would have made the MPs' code of conduct legally binding - but argue that "swift progress" on implementing the law is needed.
Tuesday's debate is focusing on the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) - which will authorise or reject MPs' expenses claims and oversee a new allowances system. Tuesday's debate is focusing on the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) - which will oversee a new allowances system and authorise claims - and the Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations who will investigate MPs accused of abusing the system.
This very bad piece of legislation has been foisted upon us by the prime minster in a spirit of vindictiveness, malice and uncharitableness Sir Patrick CormackConservative MP MPs' code of conduct plan dropped New laws target rule-breaking MPs It is ironic that a bill which is primarily designed to restore public confidence in the House of Commons is being rushed through Parliament and will not receive proper scrutiny Andrew DismoreLabour MP MPs' code of conduct plan dropped New laws target rule-breaking MPs
As it opened, several MPs complained about the IPSA's name - arguing there were already several bodies with the word "standards" in the title and it would be less confusing to call it a payments body instead. Controversially, the legislation will introduce three new criminal offences for MPs who break the rules, one carrying a potential jail sentence of up to a year.
Tory MP John Redwood questioned whether the new "very complex and expensive" body would be better than simply "beefing up" existing arrangements. Some Tory MPs say these offences are superfluous as existing laws covering such offences already exist and carry far tougher sentences.
And others queried the point of setting up the body before Sir Christopher Kelly's independent committee reports on its recommendations to reform MPs' expenses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the institutional set-up being proposed threatened MPs' rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Tight timetable If the bill was to meet minimum legal requirements under the Convention, it said it must guarantee that MPs accused of misconduct had access to legal advice throughout their hearing, the opportunity to call and examine witnesses and the right of appeal to another independent body.
Mr Straw said the idea had been to have a name that could also incorporate the House of Lords in future and the name had been accepted by the main party leaders, who had also agreed on the need for it, despite the ongoing Kelly inquiry. Such safeguards must be explicitly stated in the law, the committee argued.
The government wants the bill to be on the statute books by 21 July, when MPs leave for the summer recess. "It is ironic that a bill which is primarily designed to restore public confidence in the House of Commons is being rushed through Parliament and will not receive proper scrutiny," said Labour MP Andrew Dismore, the committee chairman.
It means there is a tight timetable for MPs to scrutinise the proposals - with only three days of debate scheduled. "We are clear that if the bill is passed as it stands, it will only be a matter of time before the European Court of Human Rights finds a violation of a member's right to a fair hearing."
This could have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech of members Malcolm JackClerk of the House During the debate, several MPs complained about the naming and composition of the new Authority and whether the new Commissioner would duplicate the work of the existing Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
It is due to clear the Commons on Wednesday and then go to the House of Lords, where peers will have nearly two weeks to debate plans. Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said this could lead to "future conflict" while Labour MP Denis MacShane said the role of Commissioner for Investigations sounded "sinister" and complained the whole bill lacked "clarity".
Other MPs queried the point of setting up the body before Sir Christopher Kelly's independent committee reports on its recommendations to reform MPs' expenses.
In response, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said one individual could feasibly fill the two roles of Commissioner for Investigations and Standards Commissioner.
He also acknowledged that if the Kelly committee recommended steps which were "incompatible" with the proposed law, it would have to be amended.
'Indecent haste'
Only three days of Commons debate have been scheduled for MPs to scrutinise the proposals before it goes to the House of Lords for two weeks of scrutiny.
The timetable leaves just one day to resolve any differences between the House of Lords and the Commons before the summer recess on 21 July.The timetable leaves just one day to resolve any differences between the House of Lords and the Commons before the summer recess on 21 July.
Mr Straw said it was "emergency legislation on which all parties are in principle committed to a speedy passage". Several figures are unhappy about this, veteran Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack describing it as a "bad bill" which was being considered with "indecent haste".
But several figures have raised concerns it is being rushed through and may have damaging consequences. And Malcolm Jack, the Commons' most senior official, repeated concerns that it would constrain freedom of speech in Parliament by allowing Parliamentary proceedings to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings.
On Tuesday's debate, veteran Tory backbencher Sir Patrick Cormack said: "This very bad piece of legislation has been foisted upon us by the prime minster in a spirit of vindictiveness, malice and uncharitableness." Plans for a legally binding code of conduct covering other aspects of MPs' behaviour were dropped on Tuesday amid concerns it would prompt a flood of legal challenges.
He was warned by the deputy Speaker about his choice of words. The government says it will try to reintroduce it, but apply it only to MPs' financial affairs.
Proper scrutiny
Some Labour MPs and Sir Philip Mawer, a former standards commissioner, also raised concerns.
And Malcolm Jack, the Commons' most senior official, warned in written evidence to the justice committee that one clause would allow Parliamentary proceedings to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings.
"This could have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech of members and of witnesses before committees," he wrote.
Mr Straw said it was "imperative that we have on the statute book by the end of July a workable scheme to establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and all that goes with it".
Controversial proposals to create three new criminal offences for MPs who break rules will be debated in the Commons on Wednesday.
The Tories say existing laws should be applied more rigorously and the new laws mean an MP could face 12 months in jail - while, under the Theft Act, other people could get up to ten years.
But a spokesman for Mr Straw said Conservative amendments "would dramatically water down the powers of the new authority".