House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has put that right and I hope that he will now start to support an elected Senate. If the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, starts to probe into the personal finances of individual noble Lords as he wants, others will no doubt probe how it is that his party has utterly refused to pay back £2.5 million obtained from a convicted fraudster. Only the little people have to pay money back, is that not right? Perhaps we should look for legislation to stop people whose party goes on benefiting from such donations making our laws. Perhaps the noble Lord himself might start drafting it, with the help of his noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The reputation of his party is at stake. Perhaps he might wish to make a statement as to whether it is planning to repay that money. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is getting a reputation for shouting the odds about this House outside it in ways that do not always reflect accurately on it. Last weekend, he was offering a rent-a-quote comment on the voting records of some of his colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, might be interested in this—so I thought that I would look up that of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. He was equal 51st in the table of Lib Dem voters in the previous Session. That puts him struggling to avoid relegation from the Lib Dem third division to the fourth. Last year, the noble Lord brought this self same Bill to the House. It did not find favour. It was extensively debated. Suggestions were made, even by its critics, to improve it, but has the noble Lord listened? Has he had any discussions with anybody? Has he made any changes whatever to this legislation? Perhaps he has had private discussions with the Government about the Bill. No, he has not. We have to question why the noble Lord believes that he has the right to bring before the House the same Bill which failed last year and the year before in exactly the same way, rather than listening more considerately to those who have criticised it. It is a game that the noble Lord and his friends play in debating this issue to pretend that those who oppose the Bill oppose the underlying principles of it. I therefore make it clear, as I did last year, that I and my party believe that if you make UK law in either House—it is a flaw of the Bill that it deals only with one House—you should pay UK tax. Whether it should be only UK tax is a different matter. I am not a tax expert, nor is the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—even the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, accepted that it is a deeply complex matter. Many technical issues will need to be addressed if the Bill is to be progressed. Some of them were thrown up by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. I am grateful particularly for the interjection of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. As I asked last year, what about those who do jobs for the United Nations, the EU or other organisations? Can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that Mr Clegg paid full UK tax on all his EU earnings, from which he will draw a pension? What of businesspeople in mid-career who take contracts abroad? What about gifted businesspeople such as the noble Lord, Lord Paul, who is widely respected in this House and who came to this country to create jobs but may not always be domiciled here? And what, indeed, about the old Liberal Democrat ideal that this country and this House should be open to people born in the new Commonwealth or in other countries? We have Members in this House who are not UK citizens. Should they go? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that Members of this House should be so committed to this country that they should pay all their taxes here, but does he think that they should also revoke any other nationalities and become United Kingdom citizens and, if so, will the noble Lord accept an amendment to that effect? I also disagree with giving HMRC any authority over Members of this House. This House’s membership and who sits here is a matter for the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House. Since when does the Customs man have any say on who sits in a sovereign Parliament? If there is any system, it should be managed by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I totally disagree with the draconian idea of a life ban as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in Clause 1(3). I doubt that it is even in conformity with human rights principles. We should perhaps hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on that subject in Committee. Even murderers get out in seven to 10 years. These and many other issues will need scrutiny in Committee. But what should happen next? This is the third or fourth occasion on which we have had a very similar Bill before us. I doubt very much that it will pass this House. If it does, I understand that the Government will not support it in the House of Commons. Would it not be better if we left all this for proper, well thought-through government legislation on reform not just of this aspect of the House but of so many others, so that we could carry on dealing with the serious issues that face our nation?