I think not. I am speaking to Amendment 43A. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at new subsection (5)(b) in the amendment, which states that IPSA can go on imposing various conditions. Although it is said that it will not be involved in individual cases, it will be involved in setting the structure which will, in turn, have to be taken into account in individual cases. That appears in the amendment. It is true that it may have appeared in the original clause, but I was referring to the provision in the amendment, not in the original clause. The noble Lord’s intervention is slightly off the point, if I may say so.
I am concerned that we will still find that IPSA is fulfilling a role in that context, and we have no idea what those conditions may be. Why we should leave it to IPSA to determine those conditions, rather than include them in the Bill, I am not at all clear. I am worried that subsection (5)(b) in the amendment brings IPSA back into a role that we may prefer it not to have.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Higgins
(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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1084 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:47:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577403
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577403
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577403