Parliamentary Standards Bill

We should not argue about the history. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that it was wrong that MPs should be influenced by what they do outside. I understand and concur with the sentiments that he was trying to express. At the same time, however, we are all, in a way, saying that lawyers should be influenced by the fact that they are up to date with the law and that they are appearing in court as well as taking part in debates in the House of Commons. The same applies to the various other professions. Someone who has an interest in farming, for example, but who has not been involved in it for some years will be frightfully out of date about how it all works, how the markets are moving, how the subsidies work and all the rest of it. Unless you are continually engaged, you very quickly get out of date, and the same is true in all sorts of other areas. Those matters relate to the general debate that lies behind my amendment, which was intended, as the Leader of the House said, to ensure that interests as a Minister or an office holder in the House of Commons should not be required to be registered—which is the case at present. The noble Baroness said that it is not necessary to state that in the Bill. I find that I am on the same side as her except as regards whether it is necessary to state that in the Bill. I will take her word for it on this occasion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 38A withdrawn. Amendments 39 to 42 not moved. Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.