I agree with the premise of my hon. Friend’s point but think that we perhaps draw different conclusions from it. Lord Justice Leveson has stated, as did our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate, that the status quo is not an option, so if we learn nothing else from Leveson, we should learn that what went before cannot go on. It seems to me to be uncontroversial that the PCC is dead, for example. We need some other form of disciplinary body or regulatory system that matches public concern but also has parliamentary approval. We could approve through parliamentary procedure a body that is not statutory, but we could also approve a regulatory body that is not the creature of Parliament but that would be recognised and saluted by statute. There are plenty of other bodies that discipline the professions or other public bodies but that are not controlled by the Government.
Leveson Inquiry
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Garnier
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 3 December 2012.
It occurred during Debate on Leveson Inquiry.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
554 c616 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-11-26 10:38:05 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-12-03/1212039000409
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-12-03/1212039000409
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-12-03/1212039000409