Parliamentary Standards Bill

I endorse the sense of urgency which my noble friend Lord Tyler has brought to this. After all, we expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent next week. Many of its provisions will subsequently be brought into force by statutory instrument; given the urgency with which the Bill has been brought forward, we assume that that will happen soon. It is not a question of being able to take one’s time in addressing the issue of some appellate body, probably within Parliament or within the House of Commons, the need for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated, was identified in the issues surrounding the case of Neil Hamilton. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which reported 10 years ago in 1999, also identified this. The report of the Constitution Committee on which my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I both sit, identified this issue quite clearly, although it does not come up with any solution, not least because the time available meant that it was not possible to do so. But there is a very real issue here. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has indicated clearly that the proposal that refers to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was, as I understand from the 1999 report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, a suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has difficulties in itself, as has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as it would raise the issues of parliamentary privilege which we have tried to avoid. The alternative to that, though, has to be some tribunal from within Parliament, from either the House of Commons or both Houses. We cannot put off the day when that is determined, because these issues could become active before very long. When other people, such as prisoners and members of the Armed Forces in combat, can all access the European Convention on Human Rights, I see no reason why Members of Parliament should not also be able to. If the House of Commons can take away someone’s livelihood—if it can suspend them without pay for a period of time or expel them—that clearly affects their livelihood and reputation, and they therefore have a right to some appellate tribunal. My noble friend Lord Lester has raised an important point, and I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that has been actively addressed.