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

As I have been mentioned in the debate, I shall comment on the amendment, even more on the Bill itself and on what the amendment is trying to do to correct it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paul, I featured on the front page of the Times as someone who was about to be expelled from the House for being non-domiciled. I have spoken to the noble Lord about it and we are both in exactly the same position. We were born overseas in a Commonwealth country and we have always retained our citizenship of that country, but we are resident and ordinarily resident here and pay taxes in this country. I have every sympathy with the Bill in relation to taxation—that is fine, as everyone in the House should be paying their taxes, although I wish that they were not as bad as they are—but to require that we should all change our domicile is an extraordinary demand. I really cannot accept the word "domicile" in the Bill and the amendment is an attempt to change that. You retain your domicile of origin all your life unless you take deliberate steps to change it, and I would be unwilling and reluctant to change my domicile. Therefore, if the Bill did not contain "domicile" it would make more sense. On the taxation issue, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, I am all for everyone paying their taxes. There is no argument about that; it is the question of domicile. If you demand that the only people who can be in this House have to be of British domicile you will rule out not only Australians but the whole of the Commonwealth. I remember an occasion when Mrs Thatcher, as she was then, visited the Australian High Commission and was told that there was only a short lease left on the beautiful property and that the high commission was considering moving outside London. Bob Hawke was the Australian Prime Minister at the time and Mrs Thatcher said to him, "Well, Mr Hawke, you are a sovereign state and you may do what you like with your own property. But, of course, I shall not come to visit if you move further out". Australia House still has that residence to this day. The reason why I raise that point is to show that Australia is a sovereign state. The amendment that my noble friend has moved contains some very nice provisions. For example, the first part gives me a sunset clause, because it would not bring in any of the provisions until after the passing of the Act. That is very nice and it might help the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and me. Subsection (1C) then states that we can all become British citizens without losing our own national citizenship. However, as Australia is a sovereign state, Britain cannot decide that Australia cannot revoke your Australian citizenship. As I have explained, until quite recently—certainly within the last 10 years—had I ever applied for a British passport my Australian nationality would have been revoked. So, even if my noble friend’s amendment were passed, it would be all very well to say that you can now be British, but you cannot say what the other country should do. You can only say what Britain will do if the Government accept the legislation. I believe that Canada is the same and will not allow its people to have British citizenship and retain Canadian citizenship. Again, its law may have changed. As to point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that nationality is not important, nationality is very important to people of whatever nationality. He said that it was not dependent on domicile.