Parliamentary Standards Bill

I rise to speak on amendments 4 and 3, as realistically this is the only occasion when I can raise the question of the lack of a right to appeal as they deal with issues relating to procedure and the setting of those procedures. I do not want to repeat at length what I said about this on Second Reading, because that would be going back over old ground, but I think it is important to recognise that there is no right of appeal for any Member in this process. If we are going to start looking at having outside regulation—whether through the commissioner setting his own process or, as the Bill stands, through IPSA—to whom can a Member appeal? If amendment 4 passes, a report will not have to be made. The Government argue that the Bill is compatible with the right to a fair hearing because IPSA is independent, but my Committee report tagged to the debate does not accept that in respect of IPSA's functions, the rules devised, the procedural safeguards designed and the various investigation and enforcement powers. All that adds up to saying that IPSA is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Lord Bingham, in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege said:""I am always rather uneasy if any decision by anybody, however wise and authoritative, is final and immune from any challenge, and therefore the reason why I think it would be desirable to have a route of challenge available is simply to eliminate that situation." That was just one point that he made; it was not the full quote. He went on to say that the way to deal with this matter would be to have a right of appeal from the House to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I had tabled an amendment to that effect, but that was, unfortunately, not reached because of the guillotine—that is another example of the problems that we have been experiencing. If an outside body is to carry out our regulation and we are, thus, trying to externalise all this, we must have the same protections as any other professional body in those circumstances. Until recently, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council both had rights of appeal to the Privy Council for matters resulting from their determinations. That position has changed slightly, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has developed expertise in determining such matters. It has learned to use this power sparingly and appropriately, and it would therefore be appropriate to consider that body as an option. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council already has a role in determining whether a Member of the House is subject to a statutory disqualification under section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, so no great new principle is involved. What I am proposing would simply mean that if a Member is subject to disciplinary proceedings, they, like anybody else in the outside world, would be entitled to due process. Part of that involves the right of appeal, which is simply not provided for in these provisions.