I want to get on, but I think that I made the position quite clear. I see paid advocacy as bribery and the draft Bribery Bill provides the perfect vehicle for dealing with that and for ensuring that Members of Parliament are not exempt by virtue of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me that what was clearly stated in the way in which the Committee voted to get rid of clause 10 was that, for the purposes of the regulation of the House and any criminal offences that might be thought to be relevant, the Bill of Rights would continue to apply. I think that if the Secretary of State tries to do something else in the other place, he will find, in the light of that vote, that he will face serious difficulty.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(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 c400 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:19:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573074
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573074
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573074