If the Secretary of State looks back at the Scotland Bill, he will find—my memory goes back that far—that I was very concerned about ensuring that the Scottish Parliament had proper sovereignty. I remember expressing concerns about the criminal offences, as I raised the question of whether they should be left to the internal regulation of that institution. That is my first point. My second is that the Fraud Act 2006 was not in existence then and it commanded widespread support in the House for simplifying the fraud law. I have here the particulars of an offence relating to the charge of fraud, which could be that a person between a day and another day dishonestly and intending to make a gain for himself failed to disclose to IPSA what he was under a legal duty to disclose—he was double-claiming an allowance. That is all one has to prove. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I simply cannot accept the Secretary of State's contention that the new offence under subsection (1) will be easier to prove.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c372 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:19:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573004
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573004
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573004