Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 July 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Parliamentary Standards Bill.


Parliamentary Standards Bill

My Lords, removing Clause 8 would have no effect on the application of the criminal law. The remaining offences come under Clause 8(2), which refers to failures with respect to the financial register. This is a completely counterproductive defence. You cannot have an offence under Clause 8(2) until the financial rules have been legislated for. Who legislates for the financial rules? IPSA decides what these rules, which are about to become criminal, are. It then sends them to another place, which endorses them by a Motion and they become the law of the land. What an extraordinary way to make criminal law. In effect, it is not Parliament—involving both Houses and the Crown—that is making the criminal law, but IPSA. Once it establishes the financial rules, the only thing that another place can do is to endorse them—it cannot even amend them. That cannot be constitutionally right and I urge the Government to withdraw the whole of Clause 8. I hope that the noble Baroness has heard enough from noble Lords all around the House to realise that fundamental changes must be addressed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c744 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Courts Allowances Advocacy British constitution Fraud Employment House of Lords House of Commons Freedom of expression Pay Members Members' interests Parliamentary scrutiny Parliament Parliamentary privilege Standards Regulation Reform Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations Sunset clauses
Legislation
Parliamentary Standards Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk