Proceeding contribution from Andrew Smith (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 December 2011. It occurred during Backbench debate on Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
To clarify what the hon. Gentleman's amendment means, is not the crucial difference that the original motion would have the House approving the recommendations in the report, whereas agreeing to the amendment would mean that the House was not approving them but simply passing them to IPSA for consideration? I might be able to live with the amendment, but I would not have been able to vote for the motion, indeed, I would have voted against it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 537 c963
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Cost effectiveness Costs Allowances Pay Members Standards Regulation Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Committee on Members' Expenses
- Legislation
- Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:11:02 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796073
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796073
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796073