B1002 – Parliamentary Lying and Evidence Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B1002 – Parliamentary Lying and Evidence Bill 2016 (Second Reading), Aph – seconded by PetrosAC MP
A
B I L L
T O
Make lying to Parliament a Criminal offence, allow Parliament to force witnesses to give testimony and make lying or making misleading claims in a public vote a criminal offence.
  1. Definitions
    1. “Lying” is defined as the deliberate act of stating something as fact when it is known to the person stating the “fact” that it is a falsehood or the person has reasonable evidence to suggest that it might be a falsehood, either entirely or in part.
    2. “Public Vote” is defined as a referendum or a vote which elects persons to represent the public.
    3. “Public office” is defined as: Parliament, any devolved institutions National assembly, a local or county council or Unitary authority.


  2. Lying to Parliament
    1. A Person commits the indictable offence of ‘Lying to Parliament’ if he lies to:
      1. A Public Office
      2. Any Parliamentary committee



  3. Giving evidence
    1. Any Parliamentary Committee may require a person to attend to give evidence.
    2. Failing to attend a committee meeting to give evidence is the criminal offence of “Failing to provide evidence”.


  4. Lying in public votes
    1. A person commits the offence of “Lying in a Public Vote” if they:
      1. Lie whilst on a broadcasted interview or debate to do with a public vote.
      2. Personally endorse any media which contains a lie to do with a public vote.
      3. Personally endorse or make any potentially misleading media.
    2. An organisation commits the offence of “Lying during a public vote” if they endorse or cause the creation of any media which contains a lie to do with a public vote, or is misleading.


  5. Punishments
    1. A person found guilty of Lying to Parliament can be subject to the following punishments:
      1. Up to 5 years imprisonment
      2. A fine of no more than £10,000
      3. Up to A 10 year ban on working for public office.

    2. A person found guilty of Failing to Provide Evidence can be subject to the following punishments:
      1. Up to 6 months imprisonment
      2. A fine of no more than £5,000

    3. A person found guilty of Lying in a Public Vote Can be subject to the following punishments:
      1. Up to a year imprisonment
      2. A fine of no more than £5,000
      3. Up to A 10 year ban on working for public office.

    4. An organisation found guilty of Lying During a Public Vote can be subject to the following punishments:
      1. Up to a £100,000 fine for each count
      2. Up to a 2 year ban on political campaigning

    5. A registered political party found guilty of Lying During a public vote in which they are running for election can be subject to:
      1. a 1.5% reduction of votes it Received across all affected areas for the first count, and;
      2. an additional 0.75% reduction for each count after that with a maximum of a 25% reduction

    6. An official referendum organization found guilty of Lying During a Public Vote during a referendum can be subject to:
      1. A 1.5% reduction of votes it received for the first count, and;
      2. An additional 0.75% reduction for each count after that with a maximum of a 30% reduction.

  6. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
    1. This bill shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom;
    2. This bill may be cited as the Parliamentary evidence and lying bill 2016; and,
    3. Shall come into effect immediately following Royal assent.


notes
Spoiler:
Show
Changes for second reading
This now applies to all public office and not just Parliament.
Harsher punishments.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Changes?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Changes?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Instead of notes.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
No, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, it is harder to prove intent, and the bill is not practical to implement; this bill will not work.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
No, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, it is harder to prove intent, and the bill is not practical to implement; this bill will not work.
Intent is easy to prove. If corespondents are found which show the person was aware they were not telling the truth then they have lied. This could be evidence sent to them or a confession of lying.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
No, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, it is harder to prove intent, and the bill is not practical to implement; this bill will not work.
How can something be harder to prove than itself?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Imperion
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I'm not particularly against the idea but how would you prove it?
0
Mactotaur
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
In the case of the courts, is this not simply perjury, which is already provided for under the Perjury Act of 1911?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Imperion)
I'm not particularly against the idea but how would you prove it?
As said above, if e-mails ect. Came to light or a convosation was recorded where the person was either shown to have confessed to lying or claimed to have evidence of something they didn't/not have evidence of something they did they would be charged.

Under this act Seb Coe, Tony Blair and maybe a few others today woudl likely be charged for lying to Parliment.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Mactotaur)
In the case of the courts, is this not simply perjury, which is already provided for under the Perjury Act of 1911?
It would be similar to perjury yes, except this would apply to elected officials and people giving evidence to Parliment.
0
Mactotaur
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Aph)
It would be similar to perjury yes, except this would apply to elected officials and people giving evidence to Parliment.
Might it not be more effective to add this as a reform to that Act, then?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Mactotaur)
Might it not be more effective to add this as a reform to that Act, then?
I feel that due to the fact that this also has provisions for elections and referendums it's better as a seperate act.
0
Mactotaur
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Aph)
I feel that due to the fact that this also has provisions for elections and referendums it's better as a seperate act.
I should say that I do support the idea behind this act.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mactotaur)
I should say that I do support the idea behind this act.
Thank you, I should hope that most do. I'd hate to think that anyone wants parties winning elections by lying or laws being past because politicians were lied to.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
'Public office' is a well-defined term in the law, and your definition is narrower. Consider using a different term or expanding the definition accordingly.

Also, PetrosAC, by lending your name to this, you endorse the grammar as well as the content.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
How can something be harder to prove than itself?

Posted from TSR Mobile
The statement holds, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, to decide if the lie is intentional is impossible if it cannot be decided there is a lie being told, thus it is harder to prove intent because something being impossible is above something being difficult. The comment does not refer to one event, it is difficult to prove a lie when figures can be manipulated, questionable sources can be used, things can be worded in a way to be misleading but not false. It is harder to prove intent, in a separate situation a politician could tell a clear lie by saying something that is proven to be wrong shortly after, the excuse would be the politician interpreted something wrongly from a conversation with another politician, to prove the intent the offices would need to be search, the emails reads, the phones calls checked, the text messaged spied on, politicians interviewed, and a court case to decide: it is impractical.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
'Public office' is a well-defined term in the law, and your definition is narrower. Consider using a different term or expanding the definition accordingly.

Also, PetrosAC, by lending your name to this, you endorse the grammar as well as the content.
It is??? I googled it and couldn't find legislation with the definition...

(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The statement holds, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, to decide if the lie is intentional is impossible if it cannot be decided there is a lie being told, thus it is harder to prove intent because something being impossible is above something being difficult. The comment does not refer to one event, it is difficult to prove a lie when figures can be manipulated, questionable sources can be used, things can be worded in a way to be misleading but not false. It is harder to prove intent, in a separate situation a politician could tell a clear lie by saying something that is proven to be wrong shortly after, the excuse would be the politician interpreted something wrongly from a conversation with another politician, to prove the intent the offices would need to be search, the emails reads, the phones calls checked, the text messaged spied on, politicians interviewed, and a court case to decide: it is impractical.
it is impractical to take people to court? why?! I'd like to note that lying to Parliment is a crime which is indictable in the bill meaning it does go before a jury.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The statement holds, it is difficult to decide when a politician is lying, to decide if the lie is intentional is impossible if it cannot be decided there is a lie being told, thus it is harder to prove intent because something being impossible is above something being difficult. The comment does not refer to one event, it is difficult to prove a lie when figures can be manipulated, questionable sources can be used, things can be worded in a way to be misleading but not false. It is harder to prove intent, in a separate situation a politician could tell a clear lie by saying something that is proven to be wrong shortly after, the excuse would be the politician interpreted something wrongly from a conversation with another politician, to prove the intent the offices would need to be search, the emails reads, the phones calls checked, the text messaged spied on, politicians interviewed, and a court case to decide: it is impractical.
To prove they are lying it is necessary to prove intent, both in the dictionary definition and the slughtlmore convoluted definition given here.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Aph)
It is??? I googled it and couldn't find legislation with the definition...
Common law offence of misfeasance in public office, for instance (it's defined by a series of case law).
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Common law offence of misfeasance in public office, for instance (it's defined by a series of case law).
ahhh I would have no idea how to find common law so that's helpful.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (498)
59.71%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.16%
No- I want it (237)
28.42%
No- I don't want it (56)
6.71%

Watched Threads

View All