At the beginning of my speech I said that there were four amendments standing in my name that were grouped with Amendment 1 which singled out parts of the new structure, including IPSA and the commissioner, and some of the processes; for instance, investigation. Those amendments suggested that they should be regarded as proceedings in Parliament for the purposes of Article IX. In response to those amendments, the noble Baroness undertook to take the matter away and to consider whether this should happen. It was originally part of the proposal of the Government—as the right honourable Jack Straw made clear in another place when similar amendments were debated—that that should be so, that they should be protected by privilege in Parliament. In the end, for the reasons which the noble Baroness gave on Tuesday, it was decided not to do that, but it is still an open question. I wait to hear what the noble Baroness will say about it. It is not concluded that IPSA and the commissioner would not be within the privilege of Parliament.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jenkin of Roding
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1303 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:54:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578890
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578890
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578890