My Lords, I am glad that I am not in charge of the post—it would be even worse.
It will be up to Parliament to decide to wind these bodies up. It is up to Parliament to reject the statutory instrument that would continue the provisions. I accept that this is not something that is done lightly in this House, but it is an option. Indeed, it is an option for the Government not to bring forward the continuation Motion, but they would do that on the merits of IPSA and not on the basis of how much parliamentary time might be taken up in trying to renew the legislation. On the other hand, if IPSA and the commissioner are working well and have established themselves authoritatively, a simple vote in the House will ensure that they continue. This will give the bodies far more incentive to make sure that they deserve to be continued, since it will be less of a lottery whether they get that chance. I urge the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Shutt of Greetland, to withdraw their amendment.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1448 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:48:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579603
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579603
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579603