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

My Lords, moving on, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for his support. He made a very powerful point about the irresponsibility of financial elites. In particular—he did not name anyone but I will—he picked out Merrill Lynch, which has so arranged its affairs to create enormous tax losses and will not be paying tax for many years in this country. I thank my noble friend Lord Goodhart for his support. We talked a little about the cost of this debate, but when you listen to my noble friend’s speech I have to say that it is worth £100,000 of anyone's money. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. All I can say after that speech is that I wish he were the Minister. My noble friend Lord Teverson made a powerful speech. I very much liked his view about the tax we pay being a membership fee to the nation. We do not want any country Members in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is against piecemeal reform, but to my regret and that of many of my colleagues, it will be several years before comprehensive reform comes about. Surely, whatever one's views on reform and the right shape of the elected Chamber, this is a problem that could be rectified now. Whether Members are elected or appointed, the principle is just the same. In her intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rightly made the point about a £30,000 limit, but such a limit would be a flea bite for a multimillionaire. Not that he will be a Member of this House, but for Mr Abramovich that would be a round of drinks at Stamford Bridge. A £30,000 limit does not affect the basic point. I imagine for some Members of this House who are non-domiciled, a £30,000 limit would also make little difference. I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his very powerful speech.