I will add my voice to the concern about the way in which Clause 8(1) is expressed, for two reasons. First, it is undesirable to create a new offence if an existing offence immediately covers the crime that is dealt with here. I, too, would like to know in what way Clause 8(1) differs from the existing criminal law.
The second matter, which is more important, is political. If the Bill goes through with a 12-month offence, the public will say that Members of the House of Commons are getting a lighter sentence than members of the public. I cannot believe that that is what the House of Commons intended. However, it is extremely important that there is no perception that the law is a soft touch for dishonest MPs compared with members of the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, if Amendment 77ZA is accepted by this House, that would deal with my second point. It would not deal with my first point, which is to ask why we need a new offence at all.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Butler-Sloss
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Standards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1274 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:52:45 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578813
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578813
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578813