My husband Mike rushed in with the Sunday Times this morning to point out the horrendous headline claiming that four Labour peers had been recorded as willing to receive cash in exchange for placing amendments or ‘working on’ ministers to amend a bill favourably during its passage through the Lords. I read the article with a torrent of emotions running through me; first of disbelief, (one of them was a friendly chap I’d organised a reunion dinner with for the 2004 entrants to the Lords) followed by deep anger and a profound sense of being let down, then the more obvious thought that an immediate inquiry was needed to ascertain the facts and the intention. Of course I hope the facts turn out not to be as starkly stated in the press, that there is some explanation. But if it is true? And what if the practice is as widespread as was implied? Such corruption is intolerable in any institution but stinks, stinks, stinks in parliament. Cash for questions in the Commons was the same. The rules are very clear.
What is the point of us making all this effort to explain what we do in the Lords and how it connects to the world around us when overnight the reputation of the House of Lords is battered by what sounds like behaviour of the most corrupt kind. This is one of the most depressing days I’ve experienced in the Lords…I assume there will be a rapid inquiry, most of us will feel equally let down if the allegations prove to be true.
This is all pretty small potatoes when you consider that Lord Steel and Lord Lamont were involved with Nadhmi Auchi. Completely legally of course – but it does show what we are up against here.
“This is one of the most depressing days I’ve experienced in the Lords…I assume there will be a rapid inquiry, most of us will feel equally let down if the allegations prove to be true.”
Sorry, but this whole article is a very long-winded way of saying ‘But there’s nowt we can do about it..’. Unless there is a way of sacking a Lord which I’m not aware of. It would probably be news to Lord Archer as well.
Sunday Quiz – Which was the Lord ?
“The scandals unearthed by the ‘Clean Hands’
investigating magistrates destroyed a generation of
corrupt Italian politicians. But they didn’t affect Auchi. He
carried on receiving the compliments of Labour, Tory and
Liberal Democrat leaders, a tasteful water colour from
Lord S________ and sober advice from the presiding
officer of the Scottish Parliament.”
Again, I’m not going to be commenting on this specific allegation until the investigation has been done.
But I would comment, more generally, that few in Government have not at some time done work ‘batting for Britain’ when it comes to the arms industry or defence contractors. The Mark Thomas book ‘As used on the famous Nelson Mandela’ is worth reading, if only to realise that great offices of state, such as the Foreign Office, are part of the wider marketing department of BAE Systems.
Of course, loads of British jobs depend on it, and many democratic countries need to defend themselves against the baddies, but in the wider defence industry there aren’t too many scruples or ethics about who to sell weapons to, as long as the legitimate paperwork is then obtained.
And as the kerfuffle over ‘Al-Yamamah’ showed, plenty of people in Government are prepared to turn a blind eye where business interest or political alliances are at stake. Of course, I’m as much against ‘cash and carry’ Government as the next man or woman, but I think we may be deluding ourselves if we assume that the Lords are whiter than the Commons, or indeed Whitehall depts like the FO or DTI [or Berr or whatever..].
Bedd Gelert, I don’t think this matter is small potatoes. Its not the amounts of money involved but the implied intention. I grant you there are muddier things that go on or have gone on in government but that’s no reason for not introducing mechanisms to stamp out corruption and subject the individuals involved to public shame. I don’t accept there is nothing can be done about it. Politicians can be ousted from their parties by having the whip withdrawn, their public reputations would make them pariahs as far as other work is concerned. Yes I would like to see our House able to suspend or expel individuals who have brought the Lords into serious disrepute but legislation isn’t always necessary for effective punishment, sometimes public notoriety is as effective in preventing others being tempted.
I expect there will be a statement in the house this afternoon following Baroness Royall’s commendably swift announcement.
Baroness Murphy, I agree that this is a problem, and not at all suggesting it be swept under the carpet. Quite the reverse, I think action needs to be taken against any malfeasance, though of course we wait to see ‘due process’ in this particular case.
I’m just making the more generic point that a lot of ‘throwing up of hands in horror’ has taken place with this, possibly giving the impression that this is a totally isolated incident. I would argue that other things are going on which don’t quite see the light of day, because they are ‘hidden in plain sight’. Easy to do when something may be difficult to justify morally or ethically, but which ticks all the boxes of regulation and disclosure.
Baroness: “sometimes public notoriety is as effective in preventing others being tempted”
The key word here is tempted. It is our actions that define us not our intentions. Entrapment in this case, resulted in a possible intention with overtones of previous ignoble acts.
The law does not deal with fluff it deals with facts and evidence. At best the miscreants seemed to have come into conflict with House of Lords Conduct 4(b)- should act always on their personal honour; this is not to say that articles 4(c)(d) should not be considered. However, finding proof would be entirely another matter.
Being drunk whilst in possession of a life peerage would also conflict with 4(b) but would anybody bat an eyelid?
The reputation of the house is another matter. The house should be able to fine the individuals concerned for bringing the house into disrepute. However, where would the money go and would it bankrupt the individual?
I rather like the red/yellow card idea flagged up in response to Lord Norton’s blog on the same topic, but clearly suspension and expulsion sanctions would be better. I fear Senex is right when he implies facts and evidence may be hard to come by for the two enquiries established to look into this matter. Like Bedd Gelert I doubt these are isolated incidents.
Should I accept free lunches from the Royal College of Physicians and the GMC as I have, knowing that they are looking for support for some aspect of legislation? Not the same order of problem but many doctors including myself turn up their noses at ‘Drug lunches’ and refuse sponsorship from drug companies for meetings and so on. Perhaps its time to rethink the generous hospitality to parliamentarians of organisations with an axe to grind too.
The existing rules at least need clarifying/ emphasising/ policing.
I don’t think it would be fair for me to comment on Lord Norton’s post without a word on yours!
You recently posted about MDAC http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/a-great-place-for-a-party/#comments and I pointed out the problems with what I believed to be more of a lobby group. I followed your updated link in your reply and MDAC state:
“…we give advice to governments on how they should reform their laws and policies.”
http://mdac.info/en/impact
As I’ve made clear, yes, of course you should be promoting what you and I are both interested in, that of the welfare of the most vulnerable people wherever they may be. That is not the issue, here. It is about what I perceive to be a lobby group, attempting to change national law.
Is this OK because it’s for a ‘good cause’?
Ladytizzy
The whole purpose of many voluntary organisations is to promote the interests of people they perceive to be disadvantaged or unrecognised. Those that campaigned against slavery in the 18th century did so with the explicit intent to change legislation. MDAC exists explicitly to try to persuade governments in eastern Europe and central Asia to recognise the rights of individuals who are mentally ill or disabled and does so through advocacy, through pressure groups, publicity and by funding individual legal cases. There is no moral problem at all in my view with trying to raise funds from relatively wealthy UK residents to fund activities of this kind. In the same way the Alzheimer’s Society, MIND and many other health related charities are primarily lobby groups raising the profile of one particular group. That is absolutely fine. The issue is about parliamentarians being paid to espouse a particular cause and for me that’s unacceptable. The whole point is we should be supporting causes which we believe in, not causes we are paid to promote. I do see there is a dilemma in that about a quarter of peers have paid consultancies from industries they are associated with and as long as they declare their interests in relevant legislation that in itself is no bar to participating in debate on that industry. The pitfalls are obvious. But I guess many of them do not have any other sources of income. I would prefer that Peers were paid an appropriate salary for what they do on the understanding that while they serve in parliament they must not be remunerated from elsewhere. Frankly I see the likelihood of that happening in the foreseeable future as zero, since the public have no appetite for raising the remuneration of non-footballers. We have seen how public disapproval prevents Members of Parliament being properly remunerated and the fudge that continues.
Baroness Murphy,
Surely the answer to the question about the ‘due process of law’ for any future ‘crimes and misdemeanours’ is trial on the ‘Loose Women’ sofa ??
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G24ZZm4e4bw
It works in America, why not here ? As General John de Chastelain said in connection with IRA arms decommissioning, ‘I would never argue against a woman’s intuition..’
Thank you for your comments, Baroness Murphy, I appreciate your clarity.
I have long been an advocate of paying parliamentarians a substantial salary, especially those in the Commons since they may lose their seat at the whim of the PM. Like you, the response I get is hands over ears and a loud “La la la”. However, my ulterior motive is to create a wider pool of candidates, especially Independents.
Our differences on what should constitute a UK charity may be better discussed over a couple of jars of St Peter’s when I next vist Norfolk. I’ll let you know!
Naughty, naughty!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/exposed-the-myth-of-cello-scrotum-1517846.html
Excellent spot, Lady Tizzy !!
Well none of you will be surprised that with 186,000 hits in Google, I felt the best way to avoid the press and media onslaught was to leave the country…and a very good weekend we had in Salzburg, where Mozart week was just ending. He was fond of the odd vulgar joke too.
To be honest I had no idea that there would be such interest in what mischief two young people got up to 35 yrs ago. Now I know. If only I could anything like this publicity for Alzheimers’ Disease or other Mental Health issues.
Several papers seems to have got my husbands mixed up but never mind. My current one was recently addressed in a French hotel by the name “Monsieur le Baron Murphy de Aldgate” and is tempted to keep it.
“Several papers seems to have got my husbands mixed up..”
And there was me thinking it was only possible to have one husband in this country, but doubtless there are perks to being in the House of Lords..
I missed your slot on ‘PM’ but luckily heard your dulcet tones on the Friday review – perhaps you will be invited on again to talk about your interest in other health issues – especially Alzheimers’ Disease.