Parliamentary Standards Bill

I shall speak to amendment 48 and new clauses 5 and 11, which I have tabled to give effect to recommendations made in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee's concern was about the need to ensure that Members receive a fair hearing throughout this process. It is often said that human rights are all about unpopular causes and, as I said on Second Reading, there cannot be many more unpopular causes around at the moment than us. However, our unpopularity does not detract from the fact that even MPs are entitled to due process. The significant human rights issue raised by the Bill is whether it provides sufficient safeguards—I do not think that it does—to be compatible with Members' right to due process under both common law and article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The Government accept, in their explanatory notes, that the provisions in the Bill relating to the functions of IPSA "may engage" the right to a fair hearing under article 6, but they say that no incompatibility is involved. Their notes say that the reason for that is, first, that""the direction or recommendation functions of the IPSA do not involve the determination of civil rights or obligations."" They say that in this context we are talking about""a matter of 'public law' rather than private law rights."" The notes say that the second reason is because even if IPSA's functions do determine a Member's civil right, there is no incompatibility because""there are a range of safeguards in place to ensure the fairness of the procedures of the IPSA."" In addition, they say that""an MP will have the opportunity to make representations"." However, if we examine the Bill we see that such safeguards are almost non-existent. The only safeguards are those in clause 7(6), which are that a Member has a right""to make representations to the Commissioner about the investigation"" and""to make representations to the IPSA in light of the Commissioner's report."" That is nowhere near enough. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, has admitted in evidence that he gave some time ago to the Committee on Standards in Public Life that even our existing procedures are not fully compliant with article 6. Yet the new procedures represent far less than we have at the moment before the Standards and Privileges Committee, and they are inadequate. My amendment 48 would delete clause 7(6) with a view to replacing it with something a little more fitting, because I believe, as my Committee states, that the""Government's view that Article 6…does not apply to the disciplining of members is…not tenable in view of the very serious consequences that might result"." We are talking about not only financial penalties, but expulsion or suspension from the House and, inevitably, the destruction of the Member's political career. We have seen what can happen to Members as a consequence of the revelations in The Daily Telegraph and of previous recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee accepted by the House that have, in effect, meant that Members have had to decide to give up their seats at the next election as a result of what we have found out. There is little doubt that the proposed procedure relates to the determination of Members' rights. Sometimes the nature of the allegation will be such that the determination will be of a criminal charge—we have already seen some such cases before the Standards and Privileges Committee in which there has been a suggestion that a Member has acted fraudulently. Otherwise, the allegations will relate to the determination of a Member's civil rights, given the seriousness of the consequences for the Member concerned. These cases will always have serious consequences for Members' reputations, and may well affect their ability to pursue their livelihood. That view is reflected not only in my Committee's report, but in the previous report undertaken by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and in the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We are recommending a series of relatively straightforward matters that reflect contemporary standards of fairness. We propose the following, which are minimum requirements of fairness:""(a) a prompt and clear statement of the…allegations against the Member;""(b) adequate opportunity to take legal advice and have legal assistance throughout;""(c) the opportunity to be heard in person;""(d) the opportunity to call relevant witnesses…""(e) the opportunity to examine other witnesses"—" the Standards and Privileges Committee does not allow that last one at the moment—and"(f) the opportunity to attend meetings at which evidence is given"." We also seek to ensure that the standard of proof to be applied reflects the nature of the charge. Thus, if the charge is so serious as to amount, in effect, to the determination of a criminal charge, it should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but for less serious charges the standard of proof should be the "balance of probabilities". That is the basis on which the commissioner investigates a complaint and the Standards and Privileges Committee judges it now. The more serious the charge, the higher the standard that we will apply, as is only appropriate. I hope that the House will accept what I am saying about this issue.