Procedure and Privileges Committee

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Rooker

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short but important consideration of these proposals, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for the amendment. Dealing with that in more detail, the commission considered that the relevant offences set out in the Standing Order would be of significant concern to the Parliamentary Estate regardless of where they were carried out. An automatic temporary exclusion safeguards the parliamentary community—and, indeed, visitors on the Parliamentary Estate—against this risk.

I say carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, unfortunately, in the last five years a former Member of the House was charged, convicted and jailed for sexual offences against minors. That would have triggered this Standing Order. It is of concern that the Member attended the House on 10 occasions after charge, including just weeks before his expulsion. Up and down the land, in the judiciary, in the ecclesiastical world and in many companies, this sort of arrangement has developed for important reasons that we should respect. I say particularly to the noble Lord, although I think it is not correct to talk about what the other place may be considering doing, that that is why, following the very long consideration of the commission and the Procedure and Privileges Committee, we thought that the level of charge was the right basis on which we should present this to your Lordships.

To answer some of the noble Earl’s questions, we have our own lawyers on hand to advise us, so we would not have to wait for the FCDO, particularly if the House is sitting. There is not a day the House sits when I do not look around at many members of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee. The fact is that we could meet with nigh on immediate effect.

To turn to some of the points on overseas jurisdiction in particular, there is a possibility that Members may be charged overseas when they would not have been liable to such charges domestically. It is for that reason that the exclusion for charges brought outside the UK would lapse after 10 sitting days or two months, whichever is less. It is important that, for the exclusion to be extended, the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee would have to be convinced that the charges brought against a Member met the definition of the serious sexual or violent crime in the UK. This was deemed to be the most effective way of balancing—again, this is about balance—safeguarding and protecting the parliamentary community and visitors while protecting Members from charges that would not trigger the Standing Order if brought by UK authorities.

The noble Earl expressed concern that charges that were irrelevant or malicious could lead to an exclusion from the estate. As I repeat, 10 sitting days is a maximum. As chair of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee, I would ensure that the sub-committee met as soon as possible, enabling the exclusion to be revoked earlier if appropriate. As the noble Earl said, the sub-committee may need to take advice but, given the safety issues, which I think are paramount, Standing Order 21A(10) provides an appropriate amount of flexibility. Were there to be evidence of genuine difficulty—I say this because it is not only in the report and the Standing Order—the sub-committee is required to keep this Standing Order under review. If this ever needed to be activated—as I said in my opening remarks, I very much hope it never will be—this is another area we would be able to consider if there were difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, posed a point about being innocent until proven guilty. That will be for the courts to decide. That is precisely why the exclusion is temporary and why we considered this in the balance at the level of charge. It is specifically designed so that, as much as possible, none of us is judging another Member. That will be for the courts to do following that charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, also raised this in the context of the environment and the importance that we have to everyone who works here. That is an aspect of what the commission and the committee considered: we need to be responsible, and we also want to have the right balance in the scheme.

I hope the noble Earl will understand my final words: this will be kept under review as part of the structure. I hope he will accept that we have given this a lot of consideration in statute and in the Code of Conduct, as I said in my opening remarks. We have sought to be consistent in recognising that these things might happen in overseas jurisdictions, but we recognise that and therefore have put in safeguards as best we can in the circumstances. With that, I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel able to not press his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but I have a couple of questions. I do not quite understand this, and I have read the Standing Orders and looked at the report. Our assumption seems to be that overseas countries have the same independent judiciaries as we have. But nobody has mentioned these countries: Russia and China. Who thinks they have independent judiciaries? All the evidence is that those countries already sanction Members of this House and the other place because of issues that have been raised. As I understand it, the incident—if I can call it that—could be from before someone was a Member of this place, so it could go back. Are we seriously taking countries that we do not believe have an independent judiciary and where, based on cases we read regularly, the Governments are in charge and, frankly, treating them like countries with independent judiciaries and the rule of law? Have I got that right?

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

This is precisely why we have made the arrangement in the Standing Order for overseas jurisdictions, particularly because there may well be some countries that deem matters criminal that we do not. It is precisely why, in the statute and in the Code of Conduct, there is this consideration about overseas jurisdictions—and, indeed, why we have factored that into this.