Skip to main content

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 bill on Parliamentary Standards Bill.


Parliamentary Standards Bill

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1294 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Allowances Advocacy Fraud House of Commons EU law Freedom of expression European Court of Human Rights Pay Members Parliament Standards Speaker Committee on Standards and Privileges House of Commons Commission European Court of Justice Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations Sunset clauses
Legislation
Parliamentary Standards Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk