I reinforce what my noble friend has just said, because that is my concern both about the Bill and this clause. The noble Baroness seems to think that the Bill is being introduced to meet public concern and that that is justification for it. It is not addressing public concern; if it was, it would be an abolition of MPs’ allowances Bill. That is the real issue.
My fear is that this clause will reinforce rather than ameliorate public concern, for the reasons that have been given in terms of the legal offence, about which a compelling case has been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Therefore, what will be left is the political dimension, in terms of what is seen as a lesser offence. Indeed, there is also the issue of commencement. While the Government will claim that the offence has been created, it will not actually have been commenced. My fear about this clause is part of my wider concern about why the Bill is being brought forward.
Parliamentary Standards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Norton of Louth
(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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1291 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:53:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578862
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578862
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_578862