As the Minister said, it depends what the offence is. There is scope for an innocent mistake defence where the offence is strict, or somewhat strict, in the way that it is drawn up. However, where the offence is one of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances where that could be done innocently.
As I said, the key criterion in all these debates is public confidence, and my doubts about new clause 19—although not enough to encourage me to divide the House—are based on precisely that issue. Will the changes maintain public confidence? My reason for opposing amendment 121 is exactly the same, because I do not think that making contradictory laws ever maintains public confidence.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 2 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
488 c613 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:43:16 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533229
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533229
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533229