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

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I had hoped to escape the pain for just a day. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by commenting on the general principle of the Government’s response to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I am glad that he has allowed us to debate these matters again, because they are important and deserve to be taken seriously. The Government agree with the principle of no representation without taxation; clearly, paying tax in this country is an important demonstration of one’s commitment to it, and it is important for legislators to demonstrate that commitment. The noble Lord knows—and I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading—that we have reservations about how he has approached the issue in his Bill. However, because of the importance of the matter, the Government are reflecting on how the issue might be taken forward in other ways. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on that. Clearly, there are important questions about the relationship, and whether individuals should be required to be domiciled and resident in the UK for tax purposes in order to donate to political parties. It is likely that we shall shortly be discussing those matters as part of the debate on the Political Parties and Elections Bill, which I think is soon to reach your Lordships' House. But my job is to comment on some of the technical aspects of the noble Lord’s amendment, which would make a major change to the UK system of taxation by making citizenship the basis of taxation. The UK tax system is based on residence, and we have no plans to change that. The definition of British citizenship is laid out in the British Nationality Act 1981 and the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. We have no plans to amend those further at present. There is a problem with having a separate definition of British citizenship for the purposes of this Act, because there would be potential for considerable confusion. Would British citizens, for the purpose of this Act, have the same rights and responsibilities as British citizens under other Acts? If they did, what would be the implication of granting full British citizenship to people who are citizens of more than 15 other countries in the list that the noble Lord has included in the amendment? That would have to be considered very seriously. The amendment requires Members to be British citizens. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has already pointed out that citizens of the Republic of Ireland, for instance, are also eligible to sit in the House. The Government made it clear very recently that we have no plans to change that arrangement. The fact is that, currently, those eligible to be Members of this House are British citizens, including the Crown dependencies and qualifying British overseas territories, citizens of Commonwealth countries—and we have heard from one very notable Member of your Lordships' House in that regard—and, as I have already said, citizens of the Republic of Ireland.