My Lords, the last thing I would want to do is delay the Bill in any way. I was shocked recently to discover that this proposal has been debated since the 19th century without being passed. Of course the principle is absolutely right, but I just question whether Amendment 1 is really a very good idea. We talked just now about expenses. Obviously, if we pass the amendment, that conduct, which would have taken place before the Bill came into force, may only be exposed after it came into force. The amendment would make it impossible to deal with that conduct. In other words, the amendment makes it difficult to deal with some of the worst conduct. To use an entirely hypothetical example, if someone committed perjury in a libel case and it took four years for that perjury to be revealed, in the course of which the Bill was passed, the conduct would no longer fall under the Bill. I wonder whether the amendment is quite what we want.
House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Finkelstein
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 21 November 2014.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
757 c646 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 06:45:32 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-21/14112174000130
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-21/14112174000130
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-11-21/14112174000130