Baroness Murphy has already commented on the allegations in The Sunday Times made against four peers. Both the Leader of the House, Baroness Royall, and the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Strathclyde, have said that the allegations are such as to justify an immediate and thorough inquiry. The House has in place the mechanism for inquiry, primarily through the Sub-Committee on Members’ Interests. The Committee is chaired by Baroness Prashar and the members include Baroness Manningham-Buller. The Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has indicated that the Committee may also return to the issue.
There is a useful Q&A on the BBC website. All I would add is that the House has variously sought to tighten up its procedures governing peers’ interests. The Privileges Committee recently issued a report on the procedure for investigating complaints under the code of conduct. However, as has been mentioned in the coverage of the allegations, and as is apparent from the report of the Privileges Committee, there are no means by which a peer can be subject to sanctions such as exclusion for a period or even expulsion. This could only be provided for by legislation. Lord Fowler made the case on the Today programme this morning for such legislation. My view is that we will need to consider such legislation, regardless of the outcome of investigation into the current allegations.
There is a case for taking action in order to ensure that we retain public confidence. When stories such as this appear, then – as with the cash for questions story in the Commons in 1994 – there is a tendency for people to generalise about members on the basis of allegations made against one or two. One has only to read some of the comments on blogs to see this effect. As The Sunday Times makes clear, other peers that it contacted declined to respond or replied in the negative.
The House of Lords, as I have regularly argued, does a good job and it is important that it is seen to have robust standards in place to ensure that members act on the basis of their own considered judgement.
This raises questions about adequate renumeration for work done in the Lords, as well as greater clarity on operational legalities (the technicality/grey area that Lord X gets money for consultancy and then influences Lord Y to introduce an amendment needs looking into). This needs attention sooner rather than later or else the old diversionary chestnut of direct elections will be resurrected – means to ends comes to mind…
Since peers aren’t paid I’m far from clear that expulsion, which if it is anything to go by the commons is rarely more than a week or two, is that much more of a punishment than shaming. However, like many things it may be more the public symbolism than the reality.
Primary legislation to allow expulsion would present a good opportunity to fix certain other issues. It is high time a mechanism was found to deal with peers convicted of serious offences to strip them of their title. I see no issue with LPs having it extinguished, for obvious reasons HP’s titles would I think need to be sent into abeyance. The present situation that felons are allowed to both sit and retain their titles seems to damage the house. Holders of all other orders of chivalry can have them revoked and peers should be no different. I realise there are the usual Human rights issues but I can’t believe it is beyond finding a legal mechanism.
Mark Shephard: I agree; we need to address this now rather than later. Croft: I agree with what you say. The House of Lords Bill, introduced by Lord Steel, does have a section designed to deal with peers convicted of serious offences, and in effect bring the provisions in the Lords into line with those of the Commons. The Bill is not going to make it to the statute book, but it is something that we need to pursue. Indeed, we could wrap it up into one inquiry in terms of the actions to be taken against any peers convicted of serious offences and any found guilty of breaching the rules of the House.
Some kind of ‘yellow card, red card’ system would be helpful initially.
Companies might be a lot less willing to ‘flash the cash’ if their ‘star striker’ would be sent off the pitch for the next period of play. But ultimately isn’t it the people doing the oiling of the wheels would could, even with current legislation, have their collars felt ?
Okay, it wouldn’t work for BAe Systems as they have plenty of ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ cards from friends in places higher even than the Lords.
But it would deter opportunistic ‘crimes’.
I must admit I don’t follow private members bills closely enough and was only aware of Lord Steel’s bill removing the HPs. This seemed an ugly bodge between no reform and full reform, and arguably worse than either.
Having just read the text of the bill it raises more questions than answers.
1)Do I trust, or even think it appropriate to the interests of the Lords that an MP (the speaker) should nominate the members of the appointments commission, secondly can we assume than each speaker is in fact politically neutral or that the speakers appointment won’t become more partisan as a result of government wishes to influence selection.
2) Exclusion or leave of absence doesn’t mean loss of title. A provision to disclaim a Life Peerage would seem to get around the Human Rights issue even though it relies on the integrity of members to use it.
3) Part 4 Section 1 seems quite dangerous. Please correct me but as I read it a person could be sentenced in a non democratic state, in absentia and without a fair trial and the provisions of the act would seem to exclude them from the house – ‘or elsewhere’ seems the key phrase. Many countries criminalise act that we would be appalled by. The way many countries regard on line speech on the Internet as falling into their local jurisdiction this seems potentially very problematic.
“A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether before or after the passing of this Act and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced…for more than one year, shall cease to be a member of the House of Lords.”
4) Not a big issue but I feel a touch sorry for the Earl marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain who I feel perhaps could be retained as members – with a self denying ordinance not to vote.
Mark Shepard: “This raises questions about adequate renumeration [sic] for work done in the Lords”
Another way to look at life peers is to consider them as a collection of political volunteers. They are not endowed with estates or an income from the Crown as peers.
However, an antonym of Noble is Poor so the selection process for peers must involve an ability to receive an income from employment or other such means so that they may remain Noble.
Life peers are extensively networked and have talents that make them employable as consultants. Another factor is that democracy in the Lords is more effective than in the Commons.
This means that an undeclared interest with a view to changing legislation has a better chance of succeeding in the Lords than in the Commons.
The gotcha for all of this is, should a peer become heavily indebted, too greedy or impoverished then they may become susceptible to bad external influences. Its never easy!
The whole system relies heavily on maintaining a strong sense of honour and duty to the greater good of the nation.
I have watched today’s proceedings from 2.30 all the way through until the PNQ finished. I agree totally with what lord Campbell-Savours said on this, I am no way politically aligned to what he says in the fact most of the time the opposite. But on this one he is right. Self regulation does not always work and this is a prime example. There should be post legislative scrutiny on the office of Lords Speaker and she should have more powers to deal with this matter her self as in the commons with their speaker.
Perhaps we need to go back further and make the process by which a person is elevated to the HoL more transparent and, as Senex says, more honourable. This does hark back somewhat to the ‘cash for honours’ debacle though I am not attempting to make a link between the two controversies.
To give the unelected Mandelson a peerage purely to give him a power base, plus this latest sting, really does feed those who wish for a wholly elected second chamber. This bothers me more than the story.
Lord Norton, you have written about your invitation to join the HoL, and why. Would you be prepared to give a rough percentage of the current life peers who you believe deserve their place on merit?
As is often the case with many a scandal, reforms can bring consequences that end up throwing the babe out with the suds. In response to ‘peers for hire’, Ross Clark in to-day’s Times, ‘We’re under the thumb of the worst kind of aristocracy’, writes: ‘may this scandal hasten the day when the House of Lords becomes a fully elected chamber.’ Paradoxically, however, he also notes in his column that the hereditary peers ‘were staunch upholders of civility and decency … [with] a notion of public duty drummed into them from an early age.’ Fortunately, Lord Steel’s House of Lords reform bill, while removing the anomaly of the 92 remaining hereditaries, makes provision for them (and more, as the case may be) to be appointed by a statutory commission.
Clark assumes that an elected upper chamber will be inoculated against future scandal, while glossing over the fact that in the past the lower chamber was noted for such indiscretions, lobbyists redirecting their efforts due to greater oversight and transparency in the House of Commons. Certainly this is the recommended course of action for the House of Lords; calls for an elected chamber—at least by this example—a red herring. Ergo my child-bathing analogy.
Aristotle identified aristocracy with excellence. As Lord Norton often reminds us, the appointed House of Lords is strengthen by the numbers of experts on hand, who can speak with authority and experience to any number of bills under scrutiny before becoming law. Isn’t that the very best kind of aristocracy?
Senex: I agree that a lot rests on honour and that there is a need to tighten up regulation, or rather the sanctions available. Ladytizzy makes a very good point in that there is a clear case for greater transparency in the appointments process. That is one of the goals of the House of Lords Bill. It is essential that members are appointed on the basis of conspicuous merit and are willing to contribute out of a sense of public service to the work of the House. For many, it is quite a sacrifice, not just in terms of time but of opportunity cost, in serving. Members should not be appointed because of, say, a political favour or for past service with no intention of contributing to the work of the House. Some are, but I am not able to put a figure on it. Fortunately, the House is characterised by most members who contribute doing so on an informed and, in my view, public-spirited basis. That is something worth stressing, but I fear will be completely lost among the current news stories.
Tory Boy: I think we need to tighten up our powers in respect of the code of conduct. Self-regulation in the chamber continues to work and there are various advantages that flow from that. Organic Tory: I agree completely. The current controversy is essentially independent of whether members are elected or appointed. What we are witnessing at the moment is similar to the ‘cash for questions’ controversy that hit the House of Commons over a decade ago. There have been the somewhat predictable calls for election as if that somehow will address the issue. It won’t.
Lord Norton,
A couple of points. I guess one thing which the financial crisis has taught us is that no amount of regulation can compensate for a lack of honourable honesty and ‘my word is my bond’ trustworthiness.
However, on the flipside, without considerable steps on your part, a huge amount of regulation is heading your way.
Tobacco companies knew this and went to huge steps to make the warnings on cigarette packets larger and more terrifying – knowing full well that however revolting they made them, they would still be less terrifying to the consumers than what would be available under draconian Government legislation.
So maybe the answer is to have a cigarette company print pictures of the miscreants in the place of the ‘health warnings’ for a time?
This episode does not entirely paint the House of Lords in a poor light. It also casts a dark shadow over the Commons. One must ask why the House of Lords has to make numerically more amendments to legislation than those that take place in the Commons?
The answer is that legislation coming from the Commons is in such a poor state that it often beggars belief. The Commons will often send through the very same legislation not once but several times. This is a huge drain on very limited house resources and time.
A house constitutional committee some while back challenged the triumvirate man, Jack Straw, on this very issue. Somewhat in awe of his inquisitors he gave a less than a satisfactory reply that things would change. He was wise to be nervous.
Whilst many in the Commons might regard peers as sheep in wolves clothing they should also observe that amongst them are wolves in sheep’s clothing that wait for the flock to stray. They hunt in packs and have a taste for mutton. Self-regulation in the house is no trivial matter; it is something to be feared, as no doubt some will learn in due course.
This episode is also a sad indictment of the Commons in that democracy in the House of Lords works to place itself nearer the people and their greater good? The house has its flaws but serves Parliament well. Where else would you find an eclectic group who work for us with great humility for no remuneration? Certainly not in the Commons!
The Commons should not speak of reforming the House of Lords so much as the House of Lords should speak of reforming the Commons.
Ref: Modern Triumvirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumvir
Just listening to Lord Taylor [of Blackburn.. ] on the Sunday Times website.
Dearie, dearie me..
‘speak more freer..’
‘the company Experiance.. ‘ [who they ?]
Sounds incredibly doddery, but he isn’t backward about coming forward and manages to trounce our age prejudice if he can coin £ 100 k +…
Nice work if you can get it…
A truly priceless piece of ‘pot calling the kettle black’ here..
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/01/clive-soley-illustrates-lobbying.html
This is the same Mr Dale who has of late been ‘bigging up’ the pro-Israeli argument, a few months after having been on an expenses-paid trip to Israel, courtesy of, er, ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, it was a ‘fact-finding trip’.
And he did visit Palestinians as well.
But to not then be able to see the ‘beam in his own eye’..
Oh, this story will run and run…
M’Lud,
Perhaps you would like to express a transparent opinion on the following Squirm.
“Most of the work I do is providing mentoring and advisory services so it’s not related to parliamentary matters,” he said. “It’s almost irrelevant from that point of view. This is not lobbying and I’m not trying to conceal anything.” …. Lord Harris of Haringey, Toby Harris Associates. ….. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4374760/How-Lords-set-up-their-own-companies-to-advise-paying-clients.html
Err, Toby, are you expecting us to believe that you are unaware that parliamentary matters are all about “providing mentoring and advisory services”.
Do you takes us for your fool, Lord Harris?