Member News
By Ned Simons - 3rd December 2010
Details of agreements reached between MPs and the parliamentary standards watchdog will be published amid accusations than several have secured "secret deals".
MPs approved the move after being told by Kevin Barron, chairman standards and privileges committee, that the current regime which limits what is published "no longer meets legitimate public expectations" and allowed the media to portray the way in which "less serious" breaches of the rules were rectified as "secret deals".
"The alternative is to leave us exposed to unfair allegations of cover-ups and to allow the media to continue to set the agenda for us, often on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information," he said.
It has been reported that several MPs were able to avoid in depth inquires into their expense claims by the parliamentary standards commissioner by apologising and paying money back quickly.
Under the new policy historical information going back to April 2008 will be published by the commissioner, John Lyon.
He will also each month publish information about the number of complaints he has received, the number he has accepted, and the number he has not accepted.
But he will not publish the names of MPs who have been the subject of complaints that he has not accepted for inquiry or the details of those complaints.
Barron said it would unfair to publish the names of MPs who the commissioner had decided not to investigate as it would encourage "malicious complaints and publicity seekers".
MPs also voted to allow Lyon to begin inquiry's into MPs without receiving a formal complaint from a member of the public after Barron assured them he would not become "some kind of witchfinder-general" or investigate each and every allegation.
"There is also a built-in requirement that there must be sufficient evidence of a possible breach of the code or rules to justify taking the matter further," he said.
In the past the commissioner had only been able to investigate allegations against MPs if a formal complaint had been made, even if the claim had been widely reported in the media.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.