---

Parliamentary Standards Bill

Although the noble Lord himself, in the illuminating debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, also pointed out problems with the use of fairness, he coupled it without a tribunal, as he also suggested. To come to that, first, the amendment to the duty of IPSA in Clause 7(4) is of course rendered unnecessary if the Committee accepts the Motion of my noble friend the Leader of the House that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill. It is the Government’s intention to invite noble Lords to join us in determining that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill. That ought to provide a great deal of comfort to noble Lords on all these matters. On the other fairness amendment, to Clause 6(8), we have to be cautious. On the face of it, introducing the word "fair" seems entirely reasonable and would give comfort. Both IPSA and the commission are of course under a public law duty to act reasonably, which is analogous to the duty to act fairly. Clearly an opportunity that was manifestly unfair would not be construed as an opportunity at all by the courts if the matter ever came before them. But I am advised that the addition of the word "fair" introduces a subjective test. Here we also come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, given that there is already a duty to act reasonably, the courts may decide that some additional duty is suggested which, in turn, may increase the likelihood that procedures were made subject to judicial review. I thought that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was referring to. I am, of course, very happy to give this further consideration between now and Report stage, but it has to be on the basis of a "without commitment" consideration. I am concerned that we have to be very cautious about introducing words which, on the face of it, seem entirely reasonable but may, in themselves, set up problems in the future. From the debate that we have had tonight, it seems that there is no clear consensus among the esteemed lawyers who have spoken in your Lordships’ House, which leads me to suggest that there could be problems with that word. I do not know that I really need to go on. I think I have covered the right of appeal to the Privy Council already. We have tabled amendments in relation to the right of an MP to be heard in person and the removal of Clause 7—if noble Lords will happily support the Government in doing so. In the end, where these procedures come to be considered by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, they really ought to be matters for the House itself.