I wish to speak about whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the public make a distinction and will not look in exactly the same way at benefit fraud as they will at fraud by MPs, which we are now considering. Nevertheless, the Leader of the House gave an analogy with the benefit fraud situation. She explained that the prosecuting authority has the option, in a case in which someone has been cheating on benefits, to charge the lesser or greater offence, depending on whether or not dishonesty is involved. We are trying to find out how it is going to differ in the case of MPs. It might be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell us how the prosecutors in benefit cases decide whether to prosecute the lesser offence or the greater offence, and how often. Do they normally use the lesser offence or do they normally use the greater offence? Those criteria will presumably be similar to the criteria that will be used if the clause is passed, as we expect that it will, with the amendments in this group.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cope of Berkeley
(Conservative)
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 c1284-5 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:53:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578845
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578845
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578845