I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining "successor". We were indeed seeking for there to be no fixed timescale. The noble Baroness says that is for IPSA to determine. It seems to us that the Bill’s wording cuts down the options.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I was aware that the term is dealt with in the current code, which is why I was probing the matter. He may not be aware that when the term became an issue in this House a few years ago, it caused a ruckus. I do not seek to narrow it. The noble Baroness is responding to my amendment. I was looking for a way to probe it, but I am left with the question: what about one’s second cousin twice removed who lives in Australia, who is a member of the family? That seems to me a bit of a problem. It would not be reasonable to expect that one should know that. We cannot disown our relations, though some of us might sometimes like to in particular cases. I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation although I am still left with a little doubt on that final matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 36 withdrawn.
Amendment 37 not moved.
House resumed.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1111 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:51:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577501
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577501
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577501