The amendment is pretty self-explanatory, but it is an opportunity to probe the Government’s reason for deciding to give another place no option to decide whether to accept the code of conduct that it is offered. It is a small point but quite an important amendment, because if another place can suggest improvements to the code of conduct, it will not be limited to the nuclear option of rejecting it outright or accepting it whole. We in this House are very aware of the dangers of rejecting an entire document because it tends to throw out the baby with the bath water. Allowing only this way forward restrains many from expressing perfectly valid criticism.
Under this amendment, my suggestion is that another place should be given the chance to amend the code. I know that it will have been consulted during the drawing-up of the code, but we all know the ways in which consultations can go. The real purpose behind this is to find out the thinking—there may be some very clear thinking going on, although there may not be—of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on exactly why the Commons has not been given a chance to amend the code. What harm could such a step do? I beg to move.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Strathclyde
(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 c1126 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:18:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577503
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577503
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577503