Parliamentary Standards Bill

I am sorry to complicate matters but if, and I repeat "if", Clause 8(2) were removed from the Bill and the offence referred to in it were not to stand, it would, as the noble Lord makes clear, then be for the House of Commons as it is now—the parliamentary standards authority—to deal with any transgression of the rules pertaining to the register. The code of conduct relating to financial interests is for IPSA. It is deliberately left to IPSA to determine, as informed by the Kelly review. There is interaction between the Kelly review and IPSA and IPSA will take into consideration the work being undertaken by the Kelly committee. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether IPSA had any functions in relation to paid advocacy. IPSA will be responsible for making the rules on paid advocacy. Neither IPSA nor the commissioner will have a role in enforcing the rules on paid advocacy. That will be a matter for the House of Commons. That is a completely different issue. Why is Clause 8 in the Bill when we are dropping not only the offence on paid advocacy but also the power for IPSA and the commissioner to investigate? IPSA will be responsible for making the rules on paid advocacy.