The four amendments grouped with Amendment 1 are in my name. It prompts me to ask the noble Baroness some questions. Let me say straight away that I am delighted that she has said that she will accept Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley. I am sure that that will go a long way to meeting the anxieties which were so eloquently voiced at Second Reading.
My four amendments are designed to make clear that various activities that will be carried out under the Bill will be regarded as proceedings in Parliament and will therefore qualify for the protection that is offered by the Bill of Rights for such proceedings. They concern the question of the code, the register of interests, the question of investigation under Clause 6 and, although I realise that the noble Baroness has already indicated that she is not going to move Clause 7, there were items in that clause that would have needed to have been subject to the same protection.
One of the points that is so important to make for the public is that when one asks for privilege protection for Parliament, for both Houses, one is trying not to secure concealment but to make certain that none of these matters can be justiciable in the courts.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jenkin of Roding
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1052-3 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:49:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577302
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577302
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577302