My Lords, when we discussed this question earlier on Report, I said, on the basis of some amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that I was happy to go away and consider an amendment which would make it clear that IPSA should consult when deciding what conditions it would specify for the commissioner to be able to exercise his or her powers to settle an investigation without referring it to the Standards and Privileges Committee. This amendment fulfils that commitment. Unlike the noble Lord’s amendment, which was to subsection (9), this amends subsection (10) so that it reads: ""In determining the procedures or any conditions under subsection (5)(b) or (7)(c), the IPSA must consult","
the bodies set out in the clause—that is, the Leader of the House of Commons, the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, the commissioner and any other person the IPSA considers appropriate.
As I explained on Report, the conditions may go beyond those which relate simply to the rectification of the error. That is another reason why we could not accept the noble Lord’s amendment as it stood, but we accepted the principle that IPSA should consult on setting the conditions. I hope that the House will agree that this fulfils the commitment that I made. I beg to move.
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 c1501 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:04:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579607
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579607
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_579607