Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mark Durkan (Social Democratic & Labour Party) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 30 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Parliamentary Standards Bill.


Parliamentary Standards Bill

But that would mean our agreeing that the legislation was purely temporary. I know that some have favoured a sunset clause elsewhere in the Bill, but I do not think it necessary for us to be confined in this part to a single day's resolutions rather than being covered by""relevant resolutions of the House"." We could automatically create a situation in which we would be required to re-legislate in circumstances in which we could pass future resolutions that could take care of themselves in a fairly mature way without having to amend the Bill. One of the aims of the amendment is to make us revisit the legislation by way of more amendments than I think would be appropriate. If we are saying that we want, by virtue of the Bill and other measures, to reach a point at which we no longer spend so much time determining, deciding, debating and legislating in respect of our own salaries, why table an amendment that forces us to legislate again on the very issue of pay?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c223 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Codes of practice Conduct Allowances Committee on Standards in Public Life House of Commons Functions Judges Income Pay Public appointments Workplace pensions Members Members' interests Standards Select committees Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Fees Office Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations
Legislation
Parliamentary Standards Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk