No. I will not lengthen the debate by that method. Given that amendment 64 is about a simple statement of fact that is included in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. Amendment 67 is, again, on a matter that is linked to protocol. We have decided during this debate that there are a number of matters that should be looked at. We can support the principle behind the amendment, and can look to make some drafting changes as the Bill progresses, if that is acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
On amendment 97, we accept the point made about double jeopardy. We definitely need to get the wording right. If we have not got it right, we need to do so, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) will accept the assurance that we will ensure that we get it right. We accept the principle behind amendment 12, and will look at the matter later in the Bill's passage.
That leaves us with amendment 22. The powers of the House to discipline its Members are inherent in its jurisdiction—a point that I made earlier—so the powers set out in the clauses are all powers that the House already possesses. There is no suggestion that the powers will be limited in any way in future, or that the list of powers is exhaustive. Nor is there any suggestion that the powers are conferred by the Bill. We are trying to make it clear that we are talking about, and recognising, powers of the House that already exist. Clause 8(10) makes it clear that the range of sanctions that IPSA can recommend include withholding salary, suspension and expulsion. That is a clear indication of the range of sanctions that a Member who has broken the rules might expect to have imposed, including the most serious sanctions.
We feel that it would be unacceptable if IPSA had the power to recommend sanctions when there was no public indication of what they might be. The public, to whom I keep referring, need to know such things. We feel that that approach best treads the path between responding to public anger and respecting the position of the House. Given my comments on those amendments, I commend clause 8 to the House.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Keeley
(Labour)
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 c359-60 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:25:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572966
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572966
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572966