APPENDIX 1: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO 17TH
& 18TH REPORTS
I would like to thank you and your colleagues on
the Lords' Constitution Committee for your reports on the Parliamentary
Standards Bill, published on 6 and 8 July.
You will be aware of the changes made to the Bill
during its passage, which were informed by the views of your Committee
as well as discussion in both Houses. I believe that the issues
raised in the report were answered during the debates in the House
of Lords.
The process of setting up the Independent Parliamentary
Standards Authority (IPSA) has begun, the members of which will
be appointed through fair and open competition, and I believe
this is a significant achievement and will go a long way to restore
public confidence in Parliament.
I would like, however, to address your overall criticism
of the decision to fast-track this piece of legislation. I am
afraid I do not accept the strictures of your Committee (17th
Report) that "this was no way in which to legislate on matters
which raise complex constitutional and legal issues" and
that because of the timescale there was a "lack of public
consultation" and limited opportunities for Parliamentary
scrutiny (paragraphs 9 and 20). This assessment does not fully
take account of the imperatives of the situation we all faced.
The leaders of all three main parties required urgent action.
Our constituents were loud in their calls for urgent action. The
Committee on Standards and Privileges also concluded in April
that "while a transitional period may be necessary for any
major changes. this should not extend beyond the next general
election"—all this meant that fast-track legislation
was inevitable.
I have, over the years been the sponsoring Minister
of a number of pieces of emergency legislation. None was more
complex than this one. To meet this, and to maintain an all-party
consensus, I chaired a series of all-party meetings. Drafts of
clauses and much else were circulated, raw, to all members of
this group as soon as I received them. Discussion in the House
did not always reflect positions in these meetings. I make no
complaint about this—far from it—but this did make
handling of aspects of the Bill interesting at times. The Bill
was recast in real time to take account of changing opinions on
it, as colleagues on all sides considered how the new system should
best operate.
In fact, this Bill was subject to a high level of
scrutiny in the Commons and, informally but crucially, in the
all-party meetings. The Bill received unopposed Second and Third
Readings in the Commons, which is an indication of the consensus
that was achieved. While the passage of emergency legislation
may at times be uncomfortable, the end result has been the right
result, and I am pleased to note your 18th Report expresses broad
satisfaction with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's
institutional and procedural arrangements.
| 
