Clause 1 — Expulsion and Suspension of members of the House of Lords

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 1:30 pm on 27 February 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tony Baldry Tony Baldry The Second Church Estates Commissioner, The Second Church Estates Commissioner 1:30, 27 February 2015

I have a number of amendments in this group, but before I come to them, as they deal mostly with suspension, may I comment on the observations made by my hon. Friend Mr Chope about expulsion? There is the question of consistency. The House has already agreed, through the previous group of amendments, that so far as is possible the House of Lords should have cognisance of its own matters. In other words, the House of Lords should control what happens in it. Unless there are compelling public policy reasons for doing so, it is difficult to argue, now that the House of Lords has agreed that it requires a power of expulsion, that this House should seek to frustrate the House of Lords’ having that power. As will have been clear to those of us who read the report of the Second Reading debate in Lords

Hansard

, there is cross-party support in that House for a power of expulsion.

Of course, it has always been possible to expel Members of the House of Lords; it is just that sometimes it has been done in slightly curious ways. I am a great supporter of some of the things done by Thomas Cromwell. I have always felt that what Ministers require is grip, and he certainly demonstrated grip. Poor Thomas Cromwell was arrested in June 1540, and a Bill of attainder passed in the House of Lords provided for his punishment without judicial trial. As we know, he was eventually put to death.

Lord Lovat, whom I mentioned earlier, was impeached for high treason in this House and found guilty by the House of Lords. Indeed, he suffered the ignominy of being hung, drawn and quartered—no one is suggesting, of course, that any Member of the House of Lords who might be expelled in future should suffer such a fate. In his judgment against Lord Lovat, the Lord High Steward said:

The Commons found your Lordship to be one of the principal Conspirators, who contrived and carried on the late detestable Rebellion, to destroy our Religion and Liberties, and to subvert that Legal Settlement of the Crown in His Majesty, and His Royal Family, under which alone we can live Free and Happy.”

Other ways have been found of removing Members of the House of Lords. Impeachment was a procedure used by both Houses, under which all peers could be prosecuted and tried by the two Houses for any crime whatsoever. The House of Commons determined when an impeachment should be instituted. It related largely to high treason, but it could relate to other crimes and misdemeanours. There was a whole process involving the two Houses that could lead to the expulsion of a Member of the House of Lords.

Members of the House of Lords could also be expelled by a specific Act of Parliament. The last such Act was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which deprived enemy peers and princes of their British dignities and titles. Section 1(1) states:

“His Majesty may appoint a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least shall be members of the Judicial Committee, to enquire into and report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.”

No fewer than five members of the House of Lords were expelled under that Act, including three Royal Highnesses—His Royal Highness Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany; His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland; and His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick—and Viscount Taaffe of Corren. Therefore, on numerous occasions in the past it has been perfectly possible to expel Members of the House of Lords when that has been found necessary. We in this House have that power, and it seems perfectly sensible that the House of Lords should have it too.

My amendments relate to the slightly different matter of suspension and the question of when conduct becomes relevant. Most Members of the House of Lords are sent there as life peers, which means they will have had lives previously. This is an issue on which the other place spent some time in Committee. The question was from when conduct became relevant. My amendments consider whether conduct should be taken into account if it was not public knowledge. Amendment 10 would limit to the current year the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge. Amendment 11 would limit the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years.

The point that I seek to make in this group of amendments is: when does the clock start running in respect of such conduct? Does it relate to conduct committed by a Member of the House of Lords only after they joined the House of Lords, or if it was discovered that prior to becoming a Member of the House of Lords, they had engaged in conduct that would merit suspension or expulsion, would time run from that point? Would it run in relation to any conduct that was discovered in respect of any Member of the House of Lords before the enactment of this Bill? Will the provisions in respect of suspension and expulsion start from the date of Royal Assent? Does that mean that any conduct prior to Royal Assent would be subject to the current rules, whereby suspension runs only until the end of a Parliament?

We need to be clear from when the provisions run, so that there is no ambiguity. The principal purpose of the legislation is to enhance public confidence. To achieve that, there needs to be clarity about the provisions and about the sort of conduct that will result in suspension. Comments made on Second Reading in the House of Lords suggested that some conduct outside the House of Lords might give rise to suspension, but I do not believe that is what the Bill intends. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend Sir George Young, who is the Member in charge of the Bill, and the Minister could address these points and the amendments, so that we are clear about when the clock starts to run in relation to conduct meriting suspension or expulsion under the terms of the Bill.