I am not a legal expert, but I would read it in that sense. It seems that IPSA is being asked to take on the main burden and to be the main initiator.
I would have thought that given its wisdom and experience, the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be the guiding body. Many right hon. and hon. Members have given or are giving good service to that Committee. Several amendments drafted by those who have been working on it have already been accepted by the Government in the realisation that that experience is necessary. The Government should take this clause away and ask the Committee how it thinks it could best be phrased to preserve these two fundamental points: first, that Parliament must be sovereign, as the Bill of Rights rightly asserted, so that the people's rights are preserved in this Chamber; and secondly, that the good work and experience of the Committee on Standards and Privileges must continue without being messed up—without being subject to judicial review and intrusions that would not make it fairer or better but might make its work more difficult.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John Redwood
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c339-40 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:26:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572894
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572894
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572894