Parliamentary Standards Bill

I support modest Amendments 51 and 64 which seek to add the word "fair". It is right that there should be a fair opportunity to make representations to the commissioner for the purposes of Clause 6, and a fair opportunity to make representations to IPSA under Clause 7. The Bill should make clear the obligation to act fairly. I am much less enthusiastic about Amendment 49. I doubt the wisdom of setting out in detail what a fair procedure requires in this context, particularly when we are dealing with a novel jurisdiction. It may, for example, not be necessary or appropriate in all cases to give an oral hearing to those affected and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. That may depend upon the issues in the case. As long as they have a statutory duty to act fairly, I would much prefer to leave the statutory bodies to decide for themselves what procedures to adopt. Amendment 76 raises different and difficult questions. I agree that there needs to be a right of appeal against a direction made by IPSA under Clause 7(1). As I understand Clause 7, IPSA will make decisions under subsection (1) and it is therefore right for there to be a right of appeal to a judicial body. However, I am not persuaded that there should be a right of appeal, as Amendment 76 suggests, against a determination by the House of Commons. Contrary to the terms of Amendment 76, the House of Commons will not determine any criminal charge—that will be a matter for the criminal courts—but it will determine disciplinary issues against Members. To propose a right of appeal, even to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, touches precisely upon the issue with which we began these Committee discussions so many hours ago. To confer a right of appeal would touch upon that most fundamental of constitutional principles that the courts, the judges, should have no role in relation to decisions taken by the House of Commons in disciplinary matters. This is not simply an academic theory; it is a vital, practical principle to ensure the avoidance of any conflict between Parliament and the judiciary. As has been suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Campbell-Savours, the solution is that the House of Commons could set up a fair procedure which complies with Article 6, as, I remind your Lordships, this House did; when it imposed disciplinary sanctions on its Members most recently, it adopted a fair procedure. However, this is entirely a matter for the other place. Its Members will no doubt consider what has been said here, but it is a matter for them.