I support the taking out of subsections (2) and (3), but I want to make one further point on subsection (1) and on the fact that there would be a maximum 12-month sentence. If the Minister is right and there is a distinction to be drawn between the offence created under Clause 8(1) and the Fraud Act and the Theft Act, what is the Crown Prosecution Service likely to do? It will be much easier to prosecute under Clause 8(1) than under the Fraud Act or the Theft Act if there is a genuine difference. I suspect that, if an MP has committed an offence that is capable of being found by a jury to be dishonest but there is an easier way of prosecuting which he or she may plead guilty to, or which means that a jury is much more likely to convict, we will end up in the same situation with an easier sentence for a small group of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said.
I know that the Minister says that the situation is similar for benefit fraud, but I do not think that the public look upon those who commit benefit fraud in the same way as they look upon Members of the House of Commons.
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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1284 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:23:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578844
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578844
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578844