text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Parliamentary Standards Bill - Clause 10 - Proceedings in Parliament
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  A very slim majority of MPs voted not to clarify that what an MP says in the House of Commons can be used by IPSA, the [Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority], in carrying out its role. 
  
  The motion being voted on was to amend <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/121/09121.7-13.html#PSA018">Clause 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Bill</a> with the addition of the words in bold shown in the copy of the clause below:
  
  <blockquote>	
  No enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament is to preventâ
  	
  <p> (a)  the IPSA [Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority] from carrying out any of its functions;
  	
  
  <p> (b) the Commissioner from carrying out any of the Commissionerâs functions;
  	
  
  <p> (c)  any evidence <b>of words spoken by, or any other conduct of, <s>a</s> that Member of the House of Commons in proceedings in Parliament</b> from being admissible in proceedings against a member of the House of Commons for an offence under section 9.
  </blockquote>
  
  Section 9 of the Bill made it an offence for a Member of Parliament to make an expenses claim which is false or misleading in a material respect.
  
  
  <p pid="b.382.1/5"><i> The House divided:</i> Ayes 247, Noes 250.</p>
  
  Despite this being one of the closest reasonably well attended votes of the Parliament there was no debate on the substance of it due to the timetable. 
  
  Some had worried that this was a potential first step on a slippery slope eroding the privilege afforded to MPs to say what they like in Parliament without fear of legal action.  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  