Baroness Deech (CB)

My Lords, even to the best behaved of us, the mention of a Code of Conduct investigation sends a shiver down the spine, because there are grave consequences in the world these days related to offences that might have been settled privately and amicably years ago: there is great publicity and the damage is long lasting. Incidentally, I was once chair of the Bar Standards Board, which investigated the behaviour of barristers. It was a complex, nuanced, layered procedure but, for those reasons, I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that regulation needs more independence than is being granted in this revised charter. As far as substance goes, I am puzzled that bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are regarded as so much more serious than other offences that they get separate treatment in the code and that there is no longer any limit at all on reporting sexual misconduct, even years ago. Are these offences really worse than violence, lobbying, financial misconduct and lying, especially as the latter group are more likely to affect people in the outside world? I continue to think that the rules of natural justice are insufficiently taken account of, with reference to my time as chair of the Bar Standards Board. The general definitions of natural justice are wider than those put forward in the report and would include avoiding any perception of bias on the part of the judge, full disclosure of all the interests of the commissioners and that the person complained against should be able to challenge the evidence and have access to all the documents involved. The case for legal representation is difficult, but today it is much stronger than it used to be. Just because the Committee for Privileges took a narrower view of the definition of natural justice some years ago, that does not mean that it was the right outcome. I do not see why we should be more hesitant in facing up to challenges of all sorts than the public are expected to be, so I suggest adding an explicit right to see all the documents and to have a lawyer speak for you at the hearings. The problem with the system now, comparing it to natural justice, is that it is one commissioner only who decides whether or not to investigate, carries out the investigation and decides, like a judge, what the consequences and the punishment should be, and the allegation need be proved only on a balance of probabilities. It is time now to bring those procedures into line with natural justice to a greater extent. One ambiguity needs to be clarified relating to the rule about the use of facilities, such as one’s office, primarily—whatever that amounts to—for parliamentary purposes. It is widely accepted that at home one has to use one’s own facilities, such as computing, research, book purchase and so on, for parliamentary duties, and people may be paying researchers and assistants from their personal income, because if you live out of London the daily allowance will not stretch that far. As a reciprocal measure, I would have thought it permissible to use one’s office here for office purposes, whether parliamentary or otherwise, especially if, as a non-Londoner, one has no other office facilities to hand. I hope that there is some sympathy for a broad definition of what may be allowed in one’s office on the parliamentary estate.