I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refer to statutory instruments as being perfunctory, but I do not regard debates on statutory instruments as being perfunctory. Of course, one can always vote on them; they are affirmative instruments, so the House has enormous power.
I suggest to noble Lords that we are where we are now. One reason we are having difficulties is that this is an expedited piece of legislation. The noble Baroness is suggesting that, if we have to resort to another piece of primary legislation, it can be done rather quickly. We are just going to be back where we are now. It may well be that IPSA and the commissioner and everyone else related to that will be working absolutely fine—in which case, why would we want to go through the pain of another piece of legislation? It would be much more appropriate for Parliament to go down the line that the Government have suggested.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
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 c1320 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:51:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578916
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578916
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578916