The House should be given the opportunity to restate its acceptance of the principle behind the proposal that lay members be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Procedure Committee concludes in a report published today. The committee's report responds to the resolution of the House of 2 December last year that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. If that principle is restated, the House should study with care the arguments made for the inclusion of lay members with or without voting rights, and decide whether lay members should be appointed to the committee with full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights protected by rules on quorum and publication of their opinion or advice. A decision in favour of membership with full voting rights would require legislation to be brought forward to put beyond reasonable doubt any question of whether parliamentary privilege applies to the Committee on Standards where it has an element of lay membership. The Procedure Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be split in two, and that lay members should be included only on the committee relating to standards. The committee also makes a number of practical recommendations about the number, appointment and term of office of lay members.
This report starts with the Committee's top priority - improving public confidence in the House of Commons by better systems of financial assurance. The House must introduce a robust system of scrutiny for parliamentary allowances. It then sets out the six main categories in which Members' work is supported by the taxpayer: employment of staff; office costs; communicating with constituents and the public; travel; overnight costs; redundancy. In each section, the report describes the current system, proposals for change, experience elsewhere, and the views and advice received. Each section ends with the opinion of the Committee and recommendations for the House to decide. Recommendations include: members should no longer be able to claim reimbursement for furniture and household goods or for capital improvements; the Additional Cost Allowance would be replaced by an overnight expenses allowance of £19,600 a year for accommodation; £30 a day subsistence allowance without receipts, up to a maximum of £4,600 every year; MPs would have to provide receipts for all other expenses from 1 April next year (at the moment they can claim for items up to £25 without receipts).
This report arose out of a request by Lord Mackenzie that the Commissioner for Standards investigate his conduct in connection with a conversation that Lord Mackenzie had with undercover reporters working for the Sunday Times. The conversation featured in articles published in the Sunday Times on 2 June 2013 alleging that several members of the House, including Lord Mackenzie, had breached the Code of Conduct by seeking payment in return for providing access to Parliament and parliamentary facilities. The Commissioner found that Lord Mackenzie breached the Code in four respects. First, Lord Mackenzie is found to have breached the rules on Refreshment Department functions by hosting a function for the purpose of direct or indirect financial gain. Secondly, in respect of the same function, by arranging for another peer to host the function so as to get round a rule on the hosting of functions. Thirdly, by expressing a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement which would involve him providing parliamentary services in return for payment. Fourthly, by agreeing to help create an all-party group at the behest of a commercial entity he is found to have entered into an agreement to accept payment or other reward in return for providing a parliamentary service. The Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct recommended that he be suspended from the service of the House for six months. Lord Mackenzie submitted an appeal. The Committee, however, has affirmed the Commissioner's findings and confirmed the recommended sanction
The Government published a draft Bill on the Recall of MPs, with the aim of restoring faith in the political process after the expenses scandal. But the restricted form of recall proposed could reduce public confidence in politics by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. Under the Government's proposals, constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition. Furthermore, the circumstances that the Government proposes would trigger a recall petition are so narrow that recall petitions would seldom, if ever, take place. The Committee believes that the new House of Commons Committee on Standards, which will include lay members, already has the sanctions it needs to deal with MPs who are guilty of misconduct, including recommending the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the House of Commons in cases of serious wrongdoing. The Committee argues that the option of expulsion must be actively considered and that the House must be prepared to act. The Committee recommends: that the Government replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the recall petition with a requirement for multiple locations; that people with an existing postal vote should automatically be sent a postal signature sheet in the event of a recall petition; that constituents in Northern Ireland should have the same options for signing a recall petition as constituents elsewhere in the UK, rather than being restricted to signing by post
The House should be given the opportunity to restate its acceptance of the principle behind the proposal that lay members be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Procedure Committee concludes in a report published today. The committee's report responds to the resolution of the House of 2 December last year that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. If that principle is restated, the House should study with care the arguments made for the inclusion of lay members with or without voting rights, and decide whether lay members should be appointed to the committee with full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights protected by rules on quorum and publication of their opinion or advice. A decision in favour of membership with full voting rights would require legislation to be brought forward to put beyond reasonable doubt any question of whether parliamentary privilege applies to the Committee on Standards where it has an element of lay membership. The Procedure Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be split in two, and that lay members should be included only on the committee relating to standards. The committee also makes a number of practical recommendations about the number, appointment and term of office of lay members.
Incorporating HC 1040-i, ii and ii, session 2008-09. About the police search on 27 November 2009 of the Parliamentary offices of Damian Green MP, who had been leaked some restricted papers by a Home Office official
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.