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

My view or my opinion, whichever you prefer. The noble Baroness must be taken seriously here, but there is nothing in the Bill that would require her or anyone else to give up another nationality in order to remain a Member of your Lordships’ House. That is perfectly plain. The Bill does nothing about nationality. However, if the noble Baroness wished to stay in your Lordships’ House as a Member, as I certainly hope she would, she would be deemed for tax purposes, but for no other purpose, to be domiciled in this country. I recognise that this point concerns her, but it is right that those people who have the privilege and the duty of taking part in the governance of this country by being Members of your Lordships' House should accept that that carries with it the obligation to pay the same taxation as they would have to pay if they were domiciled and resident in this country, whether they are so resident or domiciled in fact. The real problem is that there are a small number of people, some of them very important supporters of party funding, who have relied on the fact that they can claim foreign domicile to exclude themselves from liability for any income other than the income which arises in this country. I know that the law has been changed somewhat in recent years, but it still means that there is a limit, which is low for the very wealthy, on the amount of tax they have to pay in this country, which would be lower if they were domiciled abroad than they would have to pay if they were domiciled in this country. For the very small number of people concerned, we are saying that it is right and proper to require those who are in fact not domiciled but are Members of your Lordships' House to pay the same tax they would have to pay if they were domiciled here. That is why I believe that the inclusion of "domiciled" is an important step forward which will be essential if we are to avoid the fact of unequal tax burdens among Members of your Lordships' House.