My Lords, removing Clause 8 would have no effect on the application of the criminal law.
The remaining offences come under Clause 8(2), which refers to failures with respect to the financial register. This is a completely counterproductive defence. You cannot have an offence under Clause 8(2) until the financial rules have been legislated for. Who legislates for the financial rules? IPSA decides what these rules, which are about to become criminal, are. It then sends them to another place, which endorses them by a Motion and they become the law of the land. What an extraordinary way to make criminal law. In effect, it is not Parliament—involving both Houses and the Crown—that is making the criminal law, but IPSA. Once it establishes the financial rules, the only thing that another place can do is to endorse them—it cannot even amend them. That cannot be constitutionally right and I urge the Government to withdraw the whole of Clause 8.
I hope that the noble Baroness has heard enough from noble Lords all around the House to realise that fundamental changes must be addressed.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c744 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:49:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576167
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576167
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576167