No. I am going to end my speech in a moment.
Clause 10 states:""No enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament is to prevent—""(a) the IPSA from carrying out any of its functions;""(b) the Commissioner from carrying out any of the Commissioner's functions;""(c) any evidence from being admissible in proceedings against a member… for an offence under section 9.""
That directly excludes the operation of article IX of the Bill of Rights from the functions of IPSA and the commissioner, and ensures that evidence relating to an offence under clause 9—not anything else—is admissible in court.
Our draftsmen tried to draft the clause in a narrow way. I understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the learned Clerk, but our view, building on the recommendations of the 2003 Joint Committee on the draft Corruption Bill and further discussions that I have had on the latest Bribery Bill—which contains a similar exclusion in respect of article IX—is that such an exclusion is acceptable. However, I understand the sensitivity of the issue, and I promise that I will listen carefully to the concerns that are expressed.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jack Straw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 29 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c57 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:24:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571619
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571619
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571619