The Committee for Privileges has published its reports. It has concluded that the House does have the power to suspend members for a period not longer than the remainder of a Parliament and in a separate report recommends that Lords Truscott and Taylor of Blackburn be suspended until the end of the current session of Parliament. It also recommends that two other peers apologise to the House for their conduct. The House will be debating the reports next Wednesday.
Copies of the report can be found here.
Perhaps if there is some doubt of the House’s ability to suspend members, it should imprison them instead, as there is no doubt over its power to do that? 🙂
Matthew: I fear even that is not that clear cut. As the Attorney General says in her evidence to the Committee: “However, some doubt has been expressed how far in practice the penalties of imprisonment or fine could be invoked today.” (Appendix 1, Paragraph 7).
Just been listening to Lord Truscott on PM.
As John Mann said earlier today on the World at One, you guys really don’t get it.
I would be interested to know your thoughts on two alternative ways at getting to the point of expulsion, which seems to be clearly discounted as an option in the report.
First, would it be possible to create an indirect expulsion by passing some sort of conditional punishment. While there are doubts, if the right of the House to imprison members was upheld, might it be possible to withhold that sentence on the condition that the peer did not exercise his right to sit and vote in the House. I know this is very dangerous waters, especially when you are talking about constitutional rights (it might seem similar to a judge issuing a ruling for a crime stating “you will go to jail if you exercise your right to vote, otherwise you are free”), but it seems germane to the infraction committed. While the House would not technically be depriving the peer of his right to sit in the House, it would be doing so indirectly by giving him or her a very weighted choice.
Secondly, I was wondering about the idea of the forfeiture of titles. I know this is somewhat extreme, and it only seems to really have been used in cases of high treason, but I believe that a bill of attainder can be passed in cases of felony which result in the title being attainted when they are issued by letters patent. I believe this was used in the case of the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven in 1631 (who lost his English Barony of Audley) and the 3rd Earl Ferrers. With no heirs, I believe that would end the creation entirely. Of course, I realize that this might seem extreme. Furthermore, while this would certainly qualify as a felony in the United States, I am unsure if it would in the UK.
Paul: It doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get it.
FinnishCowl: I take your point about indirect expulsion, but as you say it would constitute dangerous waters. The only way we could utilise the power of expulsion, as a clear power of expulsion, is through creating that power by statute. The Government has indicated its intention to introduce such a provision in the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which it has said it plans to introduce before the Summer recess and then carry over the Bill into the next session.
I am not sure that thought has been given to the forfeiture of titles. I believe that we could no longer utilise a Bill of Attainder. Whether forfeiture was to be incorporated in a public general Bill, making provision for a peer who is found to have committed some high crime to lose his or her title, is another matter.
Lord Norton: I know I’ve said this before but I repeat it as it seems relevant. There is obviously a complicated legal mess in forcibly removing a title. However if parliament were simply to allow life peers the ability to disclaim the title themselves – as presently all hereditary peers can do – then those issues would be avoided. Yes it would rely on members doing the decent thing but on balance, I think, they would.
Having read the reports in your link can you clarify one point. Are remarks by peers in committee/sub-c of the house covered by the privileges against libel etc that would be the case for the chamber or any document published by authority?
I’ve been greatly puzzled by continued comment in the press that the Lords lack any sanctions because I knew perfectly well that they had used them in the past and somewhat more recently in the case of fines. In that respect Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s remarks seemed exactly what I had always understood to be the case. Assuming the house accepts that report isn’t the question settled under the doctrine of exclusive cognisance?
That Standing Orders were formerly styled “Remembrances for Order and Decency to be kept in the Upper House of Parliament, by the Lords” is just superb – sounds far better!
I know that some members of the House ‘get it’ but the real essence and damage of Lords Truscott and Taylor’s behaviour and their self preserving attitude, is the damage to the institution of the House of Lords.
I have been a life long advocate of both our unwritten constitution and of the House of Lords as the highest and most honourable Parliament in the Land. A Parliament that was above reproach peopled by our most eminent and honourable people who were appointed on their outstanding principled character. They were not elected and had no personal axe to grind when passing judgements on legislative proposals contained in Bills coming from the lower House and were able to act as the highest Court of legal judgement in the Land.
When I listened to Lord Mackay’s statements on the matter and his description of a six month suspension as a most severe act of censure, my stomach churned with anguish. These two individuals should be stripped of their Peerages and banned from the House forever. They were appointed on a point of faith in their honour and they should be stripped of their Peerages as a consequence of manifestly displaying dishonour that could have changed legislation in favour of vested interests (and in one case may have already done so) for money.
I do not think the House of Lords as a body has recognised how much damage has been done if they do not create a mechanism of expulsion. To dress a six month ban up as being severe has destroyed my faith in an un-elected upper House forever.
If it was established that a professional footballer agreed to receive a payment, in cash or kind, to fix a match, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he would be banned from the game for life. Fixing our laws would appear to be a different matter, and we can only hope that one day Westminster may achieve the standards generally expected on a football pitch.
Quite apart from anything else, how can these two Lords propose anything from now on without other members wondering who’s footing the bill?
There is no place for such people in our legislature. Period.
Croft: I take your point about disclaiming titles, as hereditary peers were able to do after passage of the 1963 Peerages Act, though I am not sure that it would be that useful in dealing with peers who may be found to have brought discredit on the House. If they believe they haven’t done anything wrong, but the House does, then there is no way of forcing them to disclaim. On privilege, this extends to proceedings in Parliament, and the proceedings in committee – and the evidence given to that committee – are part of proceedings in Parliament. I would concur with your assessment of the case regarding sanctions. I think the evidence of Lord Mackay of Clashfern is persuasive.
Stephenpaterson: I’m glad you have drawn an analogy with a footballer seeking to fix a match, because it allows me to correct the impression given by the media about the effect that individual peers may have. Peers cannot fix an outcome in the way that a footballer can. The press variously state that the case involves paying peers to change legislation, as if an individual peer (or MP) can simply get the law changed. What they are actually accused of is indicating that they were prepared to accept payment in return for tabling amendments. For an amendment to be accepted, the Government has to be persuaded it constitutes an improvement to a Bill; getting a minister, and departmental civil servants, to accept an amendment is not the easiest of tasks – indeed, it can be like trying to draw blood from a stone. The amendment has to be acceptable to Government and to both Houses. (Whether or not Lord Taylor of Blackburn would have been a useful peer to pursue an amendment, I would refer you to paragraph 74 of the Committee’s report.) For the purposes of the media, the importance of individual parliamentarians has been rather exaggerated.
I do, though, take your point about how members may be regarded by other members of the House if they are found to have broken the rules. As to whether or not there is a case for expulsion, or for going further than the Privileges Committee recommend in terms of suspension of the two peers (they could be suspended until the end of the Parliament and not simply the end of the current session), it is worthwhile reading the report of the Committee and also the accompanying evidence volume. The evidene volume is weighty – in every sense.
Martin: Membera are very much, not say acutely, aware of the damage done to the reputation of the House. We are, though,limited by the fact that we do not have the power to expel a member. Were the advice of the Attorney General to be accepted, we do not even have the power to suspend. Assuming the advice of Lord Mackay of Clashfern is accepted, we have the power to suspend up until the end of a Parliament. We cannot expel until the law is changed.
Lord Norton, thank you for this reply. I recognise that the law is the fundamental arbiter of what can or cannot be done, but Lord Mackay’s response on various news channels that “six months suspension was severe, rather than – “these people should be expelled but the law does not currently allow it” is what causes the general public and myself in particular to lose faith in any of our political institutions. This coupled with a total disregard to proportionality when it comes to expenses in the lower House is very depressing.
Lord Norton, thank you for this reply. I recognise that the law is the fundamental arbiter of what can or cannot be done, but Lord Mackay’s response on various news channels that “six months suspension was severe, rather than – “these people should be expelled but the law does not currently allow it” is what causes the general public and myself in particular to lose faith in any of our political institutions. This coupled with a total disregard to proportionality when it comes to expenses in the lower House is very depressing.
Given the severity of the Lords misdemeaners, surely both Houses ought to be clammering for Parliamentary time to change the law.
Lord Norton: You are quite correct that where the member accepts no guilt it would not be effective but I was taking a slight step back and thinking of those MPs, councillors and now MSPs (etc) who have stood down when they have acted wrongly. Many were never convicted of anything so even the proposed 1yr sentence exclusion would have no impact. However if they were willing to resign from elected office, by their sense of honour or to appease their party/friends/colleagues the same may be true of any peerage they hold. Certainly it may be better for them and the house not to have to go though a drawn out suspension procedure if an quick alternative existed.
Thanks for clarifying the privileges of the house.
Croft: I would agree that there ought to be a mechanism for peers to step down in such circumstances. I am an advocate of enabling peers to take permanent leave of absence, hence the inclusion of the provision to this effect in the House of Lords Bill. If it was permanent leave, rather than a renunciation of the title, then it may induce a peer to do the decent thing and would meet your criterion of being a quick alternative to more protracted proceedings. One could also confer on the House the power to expel a member (or possibly to remove a title as well) for the serious cases. If those powers existed, then it may put additional pressure on a member to leave rather than wait for disciplinary proceedings to be undertaken.
Assuming you accept that the government will frustrate the HoL bill is any attempt going to be made to place the permanent leave of absence into the constitutional reform bill that will have government time. The Lords may not otherwise get another opportunity in the short term to address the issue?
Croft: It is not so much the Government frustrating the House of Lords Bill as a small number of peers; in any event, there is not the time to get the Bill through in this session. The Government have indicated that they plan to address some of the provisions in their Constitutional Renewal Bill: these include enabling a peer to be expelled and, I gather, enabling peers to take permanent leave of absence. It is not yet clear whether it will encompass an independent appointments commission.
Lord Norton,
I listened to Lord Falconer on Any Questions last night.
Now there is someone who “gets it”.
You may think that you get it, but comparing your comments with Lord Falconer’s, I’m still to be convinced.
I was assuming that irrespective of whatever happened in the Lords the government wouldn’t give a private members bill proper time in the commons. Will the Constitutional Renewal Bill make it through before the election or will that and the other issues mentioned have to start again under, one assumes per the polls, a different government. Has the official opposition given its position on expelling and permanent leave of absence?
Croft: You are right that, even if it got through the Lords, time will not be found in the Commons. With the Constitutional Renewal Bill, the Government have indicated that they plan to introduce it before the Summer recess. It will start in the Commons and then be carried over into the next session. (The Bill has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.) I do not think there has been an official statement of Opposition policy, but my understanding is that the party does not oppose either element.
Martin: Thanks for your comments. I am one of those who do want legislation as soon as possible to ensure that we greater powers to deal with those members who commit serious breaches of the rules. I have been part of the campaign that has been pressing for some time to ensure that peers who commit serious criminal offences are expelled. We should also have power to expel members who breach the rules of the House. At the moment, given the power to suspend until the end of a Parliament, there are essentially three options in respect of the two peers recommended for suspension: (1) no suspension, (2) suspension for six months (as recommended by the Privileges Committee) or (3) suspension until the end of the Parliament (the most we can do at the moment). The second option may not be a great penalty as, in terms of sitting months, there is not much of the session remaining.
Lord Norton thank you for this reply. I understand that you personally do get it and that you are a campaigner for good. Indeed, I am impressed at the effort you are putting into this blog to enjoin the debate with ordinary citizens.
Your replies have been helpful to my perspective on the subject House of Lords integrity. The report in the Sunday papers, however, that The Lord Truscott felt he had been treated in similar vein to Guantanomo internee has prompted to me to have one more go at the subject.
Lord Norton thank you for this reply. I understand that you personally do “get it” and that you are a campaigner for good. Indeed, I am impressed at the effort you are putting into this blog to enjoin the debate with ordinary citizens.
Your replies have been helpful to my perspective on the subject of House of Lords integrity. The report in the Sunday papers, however, that The Lord Truscott felt he had been treated in similar vein to Guantanomo internee has prompted to me to have one more go at the subject.
There are two “don’t get its” in this debate.
First your point that many in the Lords do get the point that Lords Truscott and Taylor have brought the House into disrepute. I think I accept this.
The second and most critical “don’t get it” is how angry and disillusioned people are that the House of Lords as an institution can only suspend for a Parliament and not dismiss from public life. That is the real cancer eating away at this issue and doing nothing about it is going to be very damaging. There should be an overwhelming number of your colleagues who feel this way, but that does not seem to be the case as you are reduced to having to campaign on the issue.
Lord Norton, it’s a bit of a sidetrack (though related to the fact that the four accused Lords were all from political backgrounds), but I was trying to counter the accusation that most Lords are retired MPs and realised I didn’t have any hard data available. I was wondering if there are any readily available statistics on the backgrounds of the members of the Lords? Whether they were an MP, a councillor, an MEP, came from academia, the sciences, etc. I know this information is available on the UK Parliament website, but only for individual members, not as a comprehensive data set. To be honest, I’m not sure I have the fortitude to go through seven hundred odd biographies and compile the data necessary to find that out!
Thanks in advance.
Len: There are 173 former MPs sitting in the Lords. This datum appears in the list of Frequently Asked Questions on the House of Lords website:
http://www.parliament.uk/faq/faq2.cfm
Unfortunately, the other material offered in the FAQs does not relate to the background of members. There is very little readily available aggregate data on peers’ backgrounds. There is some in Donald Shell’s “The House of Lords” (2007). There is a more comprehensive list in Emma Crewe’s “Lords of Parliament” (2005): Table 5.1 on p. 73 is a little dated – it identifies peers’ work experience adter the House of Lords Act 1999 – but nonetheless gives a good overview of the range of experience that peers can bring to bear. The table distinguishes between ‘regulars’ (those who attend for more than 100 days a year) and ‘all peers’. The largest number of peers are classed under the heading of voluntary sector (unpaid), followed by company director, former MP, national service + WW2, local councillor, barrister, university lecturer or professor, judge, researcher, governor (school, college), political adviser, JP, manager, civil servant, finance, arts, trade union official, theatre, journalist, editor, business, school teacher, solicitor, voluntary sector (paid), armed forces (career), farmer, engineer, accountant, marketing, writer banker, doctor, publisher, police officer, ambassador, social work, economist, stockbroker, architect, dentist and labourer. Some peers fall into more than one category. In terms of all peers, the categories are in three or two figures until we reach publishers. Among regulars, the figures go into single figures below the category of farmer.
I’m sure as with other materiel if the Lords could place more information about peers experience/background in an nice open data format the usual suspects could probably produce some interesting (real-time) meta-data against their attendance (absolute), by issue and voting patterns.
Croft: I agree. Lord Selsdon has been aggregating a mass of background data, so if we could get that in an open data format,I am sure that could then be correlated with peers’ activity.
Thanks – I will have to check those books out! Emma Crewe’s “Lords of Parliament” looks like something I should get regardless; the Google Books preview has me hooked.
Martin: On your second point, I think there is a strong feeling in the House that the power should exist to expel members where circumstances justify doing so. One could argue that the House should have anticipated the need earlier, though another way of looking at it is that members have in the past acted on their personal honour and there has been no perceived need for moving to a situation where peers can vote to expel a member (as opposed to a member being expelled or excluded automatically: for example for being sentenced for a serious criminal offence; exclusion already occurs where a peer is declared bankrupt). When ‘The Sunday Times’ story was published in January, the matter was taken extremely seriously by peers – the word incandescent comes to mind – and the reports of the Privileges Committee show how seriously the matter has been considered,albeit in a context where we have limited powers. The next step is to acquire more stringent powers.
I can assure you we are acutely aware of the damage done to the House by recent stories and we are very much seized of the need for action. It is especially infuriating given all the work that has been put into explaining the work and relevance of the House, only to have it undermined by the activity of certain members.
Lord Norton, Thank you for this response. I feel well represented by you. Keep up the good work.