Expenses scandal: new laws collapse
The Mole: Post-expenses legislation proposed by Jack Straw is falling apart, says our Westminster insider
Government plans to clean up politics after the MPs' expenses row have been hugely watered down amid claims from senior Labour managers that the proposed legislation was "written on the back of a fag packet" and is already unravelling.
The Government has already dropped a move to make the new code of conduct for MPs legally enforceable. And on Wednesday night it was defeated over another plan to make MPs' Commons remarks available as evidence in court. MPs and Commons officials had warned it would destroy MPs' constitutional right to parliamentary privilege - the long-held right to say whatever they like in the Commons chamber without it being used against them in court.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he accepted the defeat - inflicted with the help of two former ministers, John Reid and Margaret Beckett - and would not try to overturn it. But he is now facing serious criticisms from opposition parties and even former ministers over the hasty way in which he drew up the legislation and tried to force it through all its parliamentary stages by the end of next month.
A senior Labour source told the Mole there was a real danger that the legislation was "falling apart". "It was written on the back of a fag packet and without getting proper legal advice. There are real legal problems with it that Jack Straw hasn't sorted out properly."
What they now fear is that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, there will be further defeats and the whole thing will become so watered down that it becomes virtually useless.
Labour is blaming the Tories for Wednesday night's defeat, but there was a significant backbench rebellion over the issue and there is growing concern among senior figures that the legislation is being unpicked, bit by bit.
It is already being compared to the infamous Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 which was rushed through by the Tory government to answer a media-generated outcry after a spate of attacks by certain breeds
of dogs. The law was deeply flawed, didn't work and has fallen into disuse. It has become a byword for how not to draft laws in haste. 
Filed under: Jack Straw, The Mole, Parliament, MPs expenses, Labour
Related Links
About Us | Contact Us
Our other sites: Auto Express | Bash the Boss | Bit-Tech | Computer Buyer | Computer Shopper | Custom PC | Den of Geek | Den of Wii | Evo | Fortean Times | IT PRO | Know Your Mobile | London is Free | Mac User | Men's Fitness | Micro Mart | Mobile Computer | Octane | PC PRO | The Week
The Week is a registered Trade Mark of Felix Dennis. The First Post is a registered Trade Mark of First Post Newsgroup IPR Limited.
Comments
Hide comments
What a surprise.. pandering to media spotlights will put any legislator on the back foot. Why not get some scholars who are genuinely clever (rather than the Westminster lawyer set) and understand the concept of fairness and the context of reality!
Posted by Breezy at 11:13am on July 2, 2009
So MP's retain a parliamentary privelege to say whatever they like, but the rest of us are hemmed in and silenced on all sides by anti-democratic, anti-free speech laws posing under the childishly inspired title of 'hate laws'. These laws have been designed by the state specifically to protect themselves from members of the public speaking that which must not be spoken, ie the truth, about what they are doing to this country. They hide behind the skin colour of people they import into Great Britain en masse and against the wishes of the majority, with the intention of diluting and then destroying our culture and identity. They cower behind laws created to protect extreme marxists posing as fronts for the 'gay' movement who would sexually radicalise children as young as five in the classroom. Very often this 'hate speech', (a phrase that could have come straight out of the old USSR book of phrases used to demonise critics of communism wielded by official state news agencies) simply involves telling the truth. The politicians who are supposed to protect the British people's interests have nothing but utter contempt for us. They line their own pockets, whilst wrecking our country and still it's all about them them them. We have an unelected head of state, an unelected second chamber, a first past the post voting system that has never been approved of by the British public and we are refused a referendum on an EU constitution that strips us of the tiny amount of rights we do have left in our own country. Meanwhile, our politicians are parasitically bleeding this country dry and stuffing their pockets with our money, whilst laughing in our faces. Do we need a peaceful revolution or what? Those against please explain why?
Posted by Jerome Peter at 6:11pm on September 25, 2009
MP's should not have been allowed to vote on there own expenses.Straw should give the people of this country the vote on it.That is the kick all MP's need.I know what i would vote. No Expenses at ALL
Posted by Josie at 10:50am on September 28, 2009
Add comment
You must be signed into your user account to add a comment.