Lord Blencathra (Con)

My Lords, I have shortened my remarks, hoping that we could crack this by midnight, but it may be five past midnight before we finish. My Amendment 12 states simply: “Any peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction”. Noble Lords will say, “So what? We already have in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 a power to remove Peers if convicted of a serious offence”. However, that kicks only in if the Peer has been sentenced to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or sentenced to more than one year in prison; nor does it apply if that sentence is suspended. However, the Labour manifesto did say that Labour would strengthen “the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”. I am looking forward to hearing exactly what that means. Surely it is talking about Peers who have committed a criminal offence, or is it suggesting that we will permanently remove Peers who have had to apologise for inappropriate or “un-woke” comments—which might also be considered disgraceful? Where my amendment, to use the Government’s own words, strengthens “the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed” is that it would remove all Peers who are convicted of an indictable offence—which are, of course, the most serious ones—irrespective of the length of prison sentence they get. Nor would I permit Peers to stay just because the sentence is suspended. In my opinion, if a Peer is found guilty of an indictable offence, he is guilty and should be removed irrespective of whether the sentence has been suspended. I beg to move.