We have discussed in detail the amendments that the Government have proposed to the Bill, and which your Lordships have agreed, in relation to the enforcement regime. As a result of those changes, particularly the removal of any powers of IPSA to direct an MP to repay allowances or to make an amendment to the Register of Interests, or to make any recommendation to the Standards and Privileges Committee about action that it might take against an MP, the need for the provisions of Clause 7 has fallen away, as it has for the safeguards that were specifically related to those powers. Since IPSA will not be recommending sanctions of any sort, we judge that there is no need to have a protocol about how it will work with bodies such as the DPP. Since there is to be no reference to the sorts of disciplinary powers that might be appropriate, the provisions that spelt out those powers and the provisions that made it clear that these were not any sort of restriction on the inherent powers of the House were also redundant.
Our amendments to Clause 6 have adopted a different approach to the sanctions that might be appropriate where an MP has persistently failed to co-operate with an investigation. Therefore, I oppose the Motion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 disagreed.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
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 c1157-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:51:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577583
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577583
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577583