Obviously that's an issue of policy for parliamentarians to decide, but it does seem to me to be consistent with the overall objectives of the bill, which are to ensure that someone who has committed a serious crime while a member does not draw upon the public purse to receive a pension entitlement after behaving in a way that is such a betrayal of our expectations of parliamentarians.
That's the objective of the bill. Pension entitlements, of course, can serve to benefit the recipient but also dependants. To punish the dependants by association, so to speak, doesn't seem to be consistent with the objective of the bill. If it's possible to adopt an amendment along those lines, it seems to me that it could avoid some serious hardship without posing a significant risk, I think, to the objectives of the bill.