He is not less dishonest; there is a lower burden of proof, as I understand it. Under Clause 8(1), you need to have made a statement knowing it to be false or misleading. Dishonesty does not also have to be proved. That is why this offence is different from the offence in the Fraud Act.
I hear the understandable demands for clarity from around the Committee. I have already undertaken to come back to the House on Report and to try to provide guidance, not only for this House but for honourable Members in the House of Commons, on the new offence and thresholds.
My noble friend asked what would happen if we voted against Clause 8 standing part of the Bill today. If we voted against it, the clause would disappear. If we allowed the clause to remain today, this issue could be raised again on Report with the aid of an imaginative amendment.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
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 c1294 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:53:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578878
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578878
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578878