Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I have noted those comments, and I am sure that the Committee has noted this exchange. If I may, I shall just carry on and discuss the terms of clause 30. The Member's removal in the circumstances described is affected by the loss of entitlement to receive the writ of summons, and by the provision that any writ of summons that has already been issued has no further affect. As the writ contains the command to appear to attend Parliament, the peer thereby loses the right to take up their seat. The Committee will be aware that the events of last year focused public attention on the conduct of some Members of the House of Lords, who were accused in the press of being prepared to accept money in exchange for influencing legislation. That serious accusation evoked widespread public disquiet. At that time the Government began to look at the legislation that we might introduce to strengthen the mechanisms, which were widely considered to be inadequate, for disciplining Members in the House of Lords. Their weakness was acknowledged by all parties. More recently, the expenses controversy in this House has shaken the reputation of Parliament, and there is an even more pressing need now to restore the public's confidence in its democratic institutions and ensure that there are arrangements to deal adequately with accountability and to discipline of Members of Parliament. To ensure the highest standards of behaviour in the House of Lords, robust sanctions must be in place and peers should no longer be immune from being removed on account of the fact that there is nothing short of an Act of Parliament that can take away their membership of that Chamber. The provisions allowing for removal for reasons of discipline must be flexible to conform to the severity of the offence. For the worst cases of misconduct, removal should be automatic, but those that are less serious demand the exercise of discretion, so that a decision may be made on whether the Member should either be expelled from the House or face a lesser sanction. Clause 31 provides a power for the House to pass a resolution against Members to impose less serious sanctions on them. On the details of the provisions on removal by automatic disqualification, the two conditions that engage that provision relate to the severest offences, whereby it might be considered beyond dispute that a peer's continued membership of the House is untenable. The first condition, in paragraph (2) of schedule 4, is conviction of an offence where the peer is sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment, reflecting the current position in the House of Commons. The condition ensures that the disqualification provision will apply if the Member is unlawfully at large and, therefore, evading justice. The condition is also met even when the offence or the conviction and offence occurs outside the United Kingdom, ensuring that a person may not avoid removal from the Lords by virtue of any event necessary to fulfil the condition having occurred outside the United Kingdom, when it would have led to their disqualification had it occurred in the United Kingdom. It may be argued that offences that attract a sentence outside the UK could be dealt with under foreign jurisdictions more harshly than in the United Kingdom courts. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, offences that would not be punishable at all under UK law may attract a severe sentence, so there is provision in paragraph (9) of schedule 4 for the House of Lords to pass a resolution to reverse the automatic disqualification. Paragraph (7)(1) of schedule 4 makes provision for a peer to make a claim for the reversal of removal, and to reinstate a right of membership following disqualification on the grounds of conviction and sentence for a serious criminal offence, if a conviction is overturned or quashed, if it is determined that a peer should not have been subject to sentence, or if the sentence is changed in any way such that the conditions that engaged the removal provisions are no longer met. Clearly, it would be unjust not to include provisions to allow recognition and reflection of a court's determinations when they change the parameters in which the individual was judged to have met the conditions for disqualification. The second condition for which the removal power is engaged as a result of automatic disqualification is if either a bankruptcy restriction order or undertaking, or a debt relief order or undertaking, come into force against a peer as set out in paragraph (2) of schedule 4. Bankruptcy per se is not a condition for disqualification; however, the provisions set out in the schedule recognise court decisions that have judged the peer culpable in relation to the bankruptcy, and they therefore provide that their membership should cease. By analogy to the provisions on disqualification for conviction and sentence for serious convictions, there is provision for the peer to make a claim for reversal of disqualification when any orders or undertakings in force against them are annulled. Claims for reversal of removal when the disqualification resulted from an engagement of the first and second conditions are considered by the Lord Chancellor under the procedure in paragraphs (3) to (5) of schedule 4. I now turn to the power for removal of membership on grounds of an expulsion resolution. The power for the House of Lords to pass an expulsion resolution, when the peer does not meet the conditions for automatic disqualification, is provided in clause 31. It will be discussed in more detail when we debate that clause. However, the significant characteristic of the expulsion resolution is that, by definition, it is not automatic; it requires consideration of the facts of the case and a vote of the House. Therefore, the House may exercise it on a discretionary basis. That might happen if a Member has been convicted and sentenced for a relatively serious criminal offence but—