Conduct Committee

Membership Motion

11:48:00

Moved by

That Tracey McDermott CBE and Sir David Steel KBE be appointed as external members of the Committee in place of Mark Castle OBE and Vanessa Davies.

My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. The first group of four external members was appointed in autumn 2019 for an initial three years, renewable for a further three years—in other words, until later this year. To help maintain continuity, two of the external members have kindly agreed to step down a few months early, and I thank them for their service to the committee. The appointment of their successors has followed an open competition. That process was delayed by the sad loss of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, kindly agreed to step in to chair the interviewing panel. She was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Prashar, and by one of the continuing external members, Cindy Butts. I ask the House to approve the appointment of Sir David Steel and Tracey McDermott on the same terms as their predecessors: for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further term thereafter. Biographical details are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am confident that both will bring valuable experience and wisdom to the work of this important committee. The final two appointments will be made towards the end of the year. I beg to move.

My Lords, may I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question? When we debated the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, there was an issue that there was a differential in the terms of office between the Peers who were appointed. He is suggesting that this appointment will be for three years, with the opportunity of renewal for another three years. Would that apply to Peers who are appointed to the committee?

I am grateful to the noble Lord. To clarify, the rotation of Peer members is a matter that will be coming before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. My understanding is that it was originally not intended that Peer members should be subject to the three-year rotation rule for this committee. That appears at some time to have blended into the three-year rotation. This matter arose, as noble Lords will know, from the review. It will come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee for consideration and will obviously come back to the House for clarification. That is the position; we are going to look at the procedure to clarify what I think was an error some years ago about the term of the Peer members.

I am grateful for that answer but it seems to suggest making an appointment for three years, with which I very much agree, and holding out the possibility of a further three-year term. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker not pre-empting the committee’s decision? Or is it the case that, should it decide that Peers appointed to the Conduct Committee should have only a three-year appointment, the offer of an extension would be withdrawn?

I am seeking to say that it was originally not intended that the Conduct Committee membership should be subject to the three-year rotation rule. It appears that this needs to be resolved, and that is why it has come up for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Procedure Committee or your Lordships may decide—I am very well aware of that—but I am setting out the parameters of what the Procedure Committee and the House may need to resolve so that the Peer members are not subject to the three-year rotation rule if that is what the House, and before that the Procedure Committee, should wish.

It might assist the Senior Deputy Speaker and my noble friend if I add to what has been said. As a newly appointed member of the Conduct Committee and as one of the members who were part of the recruitment process, one of the things that has been important to me in the disparity between the appointment terms for Peers and non-Peer members is that there is no assumption that a non-Peer member, at the point of their appointment, will automatically get another three-year term at the end of their first term. That is important, because previously I had heard it being discussed that the non-Peer members were appointed for six years. That is the point that we need to get away from—the assumption that there will always be a second term.

Without wishing to elongate this, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that. It primes that this is a matter for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider. If there is further clarification, obviously it will come back before your Lordships.

Motion agreed.