Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) 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
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. On balance, I prefer my first theory to my second. Nevertheless, I cannot exclude the second. Having spoken to others who might know more about this than I do, and who seem to be more knowledgeable about the House's procedures and rules, I believe that we would be very unwise to take this step. As I have said, the change of wording is either pointless—in which case, if we want to change it, we can do so when we create the new body with a single code and possibly a single commissioner doing slightly different things—or we should leave the proposal well alone.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 495 c248
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:58:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572372
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572372
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572372