Radio 4’s top headline this morning was ‘Calls are growing for reform of the House of Lords’. It’s not often that happens. Neither reformers nor reactionaries may relish the means of this meteoric rise to the top of the news agenda, but we have to face the simple fact that the public do not believe that the House of Lords can be left as it is.
Today’s leader article in The Times sums up neatly the difficulty the House faces, and reflects the dilemma brought out by so many of my contributions here, and the tenor of many readers’ comments on them. The Times argues, “The power of the House of Lords is entirely dependent on its credibility. In the absence of the democratic mandate that comes from election, the legitimacy of the Lords relies on it serving its purpose well and with unimpeachable integrity.” So much discussion here has taken the tone that the House does its job well, so why change it? Yet recent events give the starkest evidence yet that seats for life – with no accountability whatever – have a tendency to erode the integrity of those who enjoy them. Even if the vast majority of Peers are beyond reproach, the actions of a few have the potential to undermine confidence in the institution as a whole.
One of the most useful features of the Lords is that the Government of the day – of any party – does not have a majority in the Lords, and is never likely to in the future. It is easier to get legislation changed here than in the Commons. Also, Peers have far more opportunities to debate and decide changes than MPs, because the business of the Commons is so rigorously controlled by the Government Whips. So those who wish to influence new laws, whether they are charities, pressure groups or big private companies, will naturally want to persuade Peers to help them. While the House remains answerable and accountable to nobody, with Life Peers appointed by the Prime Minister and the remaining Hereditaries a relic of past appointments, this patronage is a recipe for constitutional confusion, for potential corruption and for ongoing accusations of foul play, whether founded or not.
So roll on reform say I – yesterday I asked whatever happened to Gordon Brown’s “Constitutional Renewal” programme ….. and the Minister told me to be patient. The Times concludes “the Upper House is exactly the place that anyone should target if they wish to circumvent democracy with money.” None of us should have any patience with that.
Hey, uncategorised, could you let us know who you are? I was trying to work it out from yesterday’s questions but couldn’t. I often do what you’ve just done, forget to tick the category and have to edit after,easily done I know…
we have to face the simple fact that the public do not believe that the House of Lords can be left as it is.
This member of the public is impressed by the work of the HOL in the way it scrutinises legislation, some of it, in recent times, very badly drafted. I’m no expert on the HOL, but I would not want to see extensive reform, just a House that is shown to be able to police itself, when that is necessary, as might be in the light of the current allegations.
However, I am very concerned at the reports in the Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765) regarding the comments of Lord Ahmed and the effect they have had on the HOL’s freedom to investigate and discuss controversial issues. If the reports are true then I hope that the HOLs take action over this matter as well or will this be yet another subject, in this country, where freedoms have just been allowed to die.
Lord Tyler,
Many is the time I have given you a kicking for your ‘It ain’t broke, but let’s try and fix it’ arguments. But after this episode, and whilst I hate to admit it, you may have a point…
It is a shame in a way – rather like seeing the amount of legislation now required in the City, because the old ‘dictum meum pactum’ and honour are things of the past.
Very well written. Personally, i can’t see the issue of Lords reform being settled before an election in 2010, though.
Actually, when you consider recent history, the Lords often seems more democratic to me. Whilst not elected the Lords often demonstrate and independence and common sense more in line with the population at large. Clearly the Commons is too tightly tied by careerist politicians and the operation of whips.
But I am now very concerned since it seems that Lord Ahmed has successfully threatened the Lords into submission and forced the house to cancel the showing of the film Geert Wilders short film Fitna scheduled for the 29th January. This film is intended to open debate as to the nature of Islam as practised in the World at large so that we can compare reality to the claims about the religion made by the likes of Lord Ahmed. It seems to me that the banning of this Fitna evening, and the acquiescence of the house, does more to undermine the value of the house than does the current rent-a-peer scandal.
I think it’s time for more than what is wanted by the campaign for an effective second chamber.
Papering over the cracks won’t do right now – we need the full second phase of reform to come out the dusty cupboard.
Long-term elections, paid peers and centralised expenses (so no paying grandchildren to open mail once a month), powers to sack. Perhaps we could even let Baroness Haymen be a real speaker. She’s far too intelligent a woman to be left silent, swinging her legs on the woolsack like a sixth former in a common room.
This mess has shown that the compromise doesn’t work – the arguments for a halfway house have crumbled. Let’s look at Obama and never waste a crisis!
Someone else who thinks it’s time for a quick quiz..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/01/quiz_time.html
Just listening to Lord Taylor 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 Harper, you wouldn’t by any chance have supported wholesale reform of the House prior to this episode would you?
I agree with the article in the Times, the House of Lords gets its legitimacy not from an election, but from its actions. I have no faith that a second chamber of elected Parliamentarians would not have faced similar allegations. Actually, I withdraw that, MPs would probably be more up to date with the rules and take a Directorship (post losing there seat in the 2010 election) with a company who wanted them to lobby for an amendment or declare some money received as a donation to their election campaign.
Again, I withdraw the comment; the process of lobbying is murky waters. On the cases in question we should wait and see what the Committee report is, as for lobbying more needs to be done to understand the nature of it. I read a recent HoC report on regulating lobbying and know of a couple of good books, the area is extremely controversial and the difference between £10k buys you an amendment and seeking expert input from effected parties is not always as clear as it could be. As an example along the grey line, one MP has sympathy for a particular Industry or even Trade Unions, he receives a campaign donation from them because he defends their issues and campaigns actively for more Union rights and undoing Thatcher’s employment regulations etc. Is what he’s doing improper?
I would really like to see the Lords have the ability to expel members for corruption, what a fantastic denunciation that would be of a person’s character where a member was caught participating in the legislative process for money, selling amendments without caring what they are for. Perhaps there could be a formal censorship motion similar to the US Congress, enabling the Houses to call a members before it and denounce that members actions.
On another point…
It is also notable, as far as I am aware, that the allegations concern Party Peers, not Members from the Crossbenches. While this episode should raise questions as to the powers of the Lords to punish members, one only has to look at papers earlier this week to dispel the magic election formula. Both Peter Hain and Jack Straw failed to disclose donations and apologised this week for it, while Jonathon Djanogly made the press in November for the same thing. That’s before getting into the Derek Conway and Caroline Spellman fiasco. I would invite further examples of MPs finances in disrepute but I fear too many examples of recent cases where prima facia there has been wrong doing, and we must accept until an investigation happens we are not dealing with proven facts, yet.
Of course several of the instances involving members of the Commons are, after the official reports are published at least, mistakes worthy of apology, but not more. I disagree with that opinion, but that is the standards in the Commons, maybe the pro-reformers should answer that charge before abolishing the House of Lords.
Noodles – Yes, we have Lord Soley, the Americans have [had ?] Governor Blagojevich…
Perhaps it is better to ‘stick’ than ‘twist’…
Noodles: I was actually, like many, starting to see the appeal of appointed experts. It’s so dignified, so civilised that way, without the scramble of letting the public get a word in. Now I’m sharply reminded of the disaster of that old approach.
The issues surrounding the House of Lords right now seem entirely due to the lack of effective sanctions of its members, by its members or anyone else.
It seems mostly irrelevant (to this situation) how any single member got there in the first place. Discussion in the media and elsewhere of wholesale Lords reform can only misdirect us tackling the current problem, thus prolonging it.
So, I suggest that any peer may be striped of their title in the same way MPs may be ejected from the Commons.
On a side note, it seems odd that the Times article is suggesting that Lords draw their legitimacy on their actions (merit), while the MPs draws their legitimacy from how they got there (privilege). While undoubtably true, it’s still pretty weird.
A Harper: The question is though, would this affair (as the allegations stand) be less likely in an elected second chamber?
For me the answer is no, not at all. An elected second chamber would have members needing to raise money to campaign, as such dealings would be regulated under the register of members interests and money would take the form of donations.
It should be noted that many of the regulatory controls that exist in the Commons were implemented following allegations of corruption and peddling special interest.
Maybe now the House of Lords needs to adjust its rules to reflect the fact that they are also targets for lobbying and interest groups.
Some might say there is no such thing as bad publicity. What we must all keep in mind is that good journalism keeps everybody engaged with current affairs. However, entrapment is a different matter. Its sole purpose is to discredit somebody so that the owners of a media business will see increased sales or viewing figures.
Like a wise man once said, let those without sin cast the first stone. The other allegory was for the same man to be tempted on the mountain by a deceiver. Parliament is filled with people not paragons.
What is of more concern is that having been tempted in the first place whilst in the employment of another was the deed done in good conscience for the greater good or was the individual persuaded by Mammon to do something contrary to their good character and at odds with an accepted sense of honour?
The blog does highlight the good work that goes on in the House of Lords but it also hides a secret. After the events of 1911 caused by Lord Tyler’s political forbears the aristocracy effectively gave up on the house and there was much disillusionment. Some brave fellows continued to serve the house well, but after two devastating world wars there was much legislation that needed to be done and that needed a functional second house.
So the Commons created its own ‘aristocracy’. When I hear the likes of a democratic Parliamentary guerrilla like Lord Tyler seek an elected second house he forgets that his fealty is to the Monarchy but those who elevated him, the Commons, pull his strings. This is why his arguments are hollow. Life peers are an extension of the Commons into the House of Lords and this is the mandate by which they serve.
To do otherwise is to demonstrate that a democratically elected Commons is incapable of knowing what best serves Parliament in the appointment of its ‘aristocracy’.
Some also suggest that life peers should be paid a salary. What they must keep in mind is those who pay the piper have a right to call the tune. If a salary must be paid then the Monarchy might consider reducing payment of its taxes to the state and provide from those taxes an income to life peers as an expense.
A peerage is for life; miscreants should be thrown to the wolves whilst still wearing their ermine and given no quarter. If the Commons succeeds in removing a peerage outside of an act of Parliament then the Monarchy might just as well relocate itself permanently to Scotland and take up the mantle of the early Scottish Kings who ruled by the will of the people.
My Lord Tyler,
Please explain how election of the Lords would prevent this happening.
This is four peers out of about 800. It’s perfectly likely to happen in the elected chamber. The method of appointment of legislators has absolutely no bearing on their susceptibility to corruption.
The Lords does and will continue to do excellent work which the Commons simply cannot handle and an elected second chamber would singularly fail to compare to.
You mean, like we expect our rulers to do nowadays?
Seriously: what?
“A peerage is for life; miscreants should be thrown to the wolves whilst still wearing their ermine and given no quarter. ”
Now that would make entertaining television !!