Some of you will know that the House of Lords Code of Conduct was recently scrutinised in great detail and a clearer code is emerging. Very simply put if you are a paid advocate for a particular enterprise – whether that be, for example, a commercial company of some sort of public relations firm – you cannot seek to benefit that company by means of parliamentary work such as putting down amendments to bills or speaking in debates or even influencing others to do so.
However, confusion can still arise because many peers have been appointed to the House precisely because of their expertise in a given area. Thus, many of the former Chiefs of Staff now act as consultants to various defence procurement firms. Does this mean that they should never speak on defence matters , even if they clearly declare their interest? Does it mean that doctors who are at the cutting edge of medical science should no longer speak on human fertilisation research much of which is closely connected with commercial laboratories?
Until very recently I thought I had it sussed: any paid work which was concerned with advising a company on how Parliament works is fine. However, paid work which advances the interests of a given company in Parliament is not fine. But as has been pointed out to me what is the value of appointing an expert if s/he is not able to exercise that expertise by expressing a view in debate or trying to improve legislation?
Moreover, it must occasionally happen that the interests of a company may well coincide with the public interest (for example – an expert on farming in the UK who is paid by a farming lobby may wish to promote the purchase of local produce which by reason of freshness, decline in air miles etc, is also good for people), so should s/he be prevented from influencing legislation on this precise issue?
Declarations of interest are a very difficult issue, especially when some people declare 6p.
I am certainly not in favor of chiefs of staff advising Mercenary businesses and speaking up for them in the house at any time.
Why not pay peers a wage and ban them from working elsewhere?
I want people with “proper” jobs making legislation.
I know it’s a bit different for Lords, but I fail to see why people don’t want their MPs to have a second job. What’s wrong with being at the bar (judicial of course!) in the morning and going to the Commons in the afternoon/late into the night, and back at the constituency at the weekend?
Banning second jobs for MPs means you’ll get career politicians, and if you get career politicians you get expenses-troughers.
At the moment we have peers claiming attendance allowance. Despite what the media says I’m not convinced there are many peers at all who abuse that. But surely paying them all, regardless of whether they turned up or not, is the worst of both worlds?
Why pay them anything? Why not just abolish the lords?
I find this whole area very difficult. The crucial thing for me is that people should be very explicit when declaring their interests, especially their direct pecuniary interests, not only in the Register of Interests, nor simply by referring to the Register in debate, but should explicitly say what their connections are in relevant questions and during debate. People with specific interests may have valid points to make but we want to be able to judge whether or not their comments MAY have been influenced by the organisations they are connected with. I have a paid non-executive appointment with Monitor, the public sector independent regulator of NHS Founsdation trusts. I hope I always remember to mention this when the issue of NHS services comes up since it may influence my approach We certainly want the expertise of the former military leaders but I would like them to remind us who is paying them for what when they talk about supplies and equipment and so on. I should add that I am not aware of them not having done so, I’m just using this as an example.
The questions will be unresolvable I think while we have a chamber of people appointed because of their expertise in specific areas. jken146, I’m not sure even if peers were apd a wag (and I’m in favour of that perhaps unsurprisingly) it still wouldn’t stop the problem of the influence of non-pecuniary interests, which can be just as intrusive in influenciing peers’ behaviour.
Rather proving the point that the harder you crack down on perceived problems the more proposals tend towards absurdity.
It would be best not to pay peers at all, not even allowances then we might get ….fair value for their money.
However some members actually advertise their wares by declaring an interest, so the declaration may also be private to the Lord speaker beforehand.
Not voting is also an intrinsic part of declaring that interest, and you have to decide whether to do so or not. Other members may object to your vote once they know your interest.
However in a case by way of example where a member has a stash of unlawfully acquired artefacts from the looted museum at Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq war, and which are being sold on the nod at London auction houses without provenance,( but the very highest provenance indeed for an expert),
if a member then introduce a bill to vary the law on the sale of the National Treasures of Iraq in London, should he, or should he not, declare an interest?
If he does he will be under suspicion of buying looted property, and if he does not he
might be guilty of offending the laws of the House.
However if the intended law has the effect of re-valuing his treasures by several hundred per cent, should he declare an interest?
Should he be introducing the bill at all?
What he has bought is just some old stuff from the middle east.
This is a difficult one, perhaps with no great solution.
My kneejerk reaction would have been as with jken146 above but then you apply real thought to the matter. We want the people with expertise and wisdom, well most of those are involved in successful industries of one kind or another. They will undoubtably retain some parts of their lives within those industries, probably for financial reasons after all none of work for nothing do we ?
To pay these people enough to be solely contracted to Government would possibly be beyond budget and not be enforceable. This of course does leave open the question of why they choose to become peers or even MP`s. There must be a benefit and it could be said each has their own agenda, not that personal agenda`s are alway`s bad, Mother Theresa had one.
Of course there is a vast difference between personal interest and business but neither should perhaps be stifled in terms of debate after all someone in the business will have a better idea or view. Lord Sugar, the entrepeneur guru, would have little to contribute to anything that involved business if you stifle his debate. Being a smart guy, not my fave I`ll grant you, he would spot a shilling a mile off even if he weren`t actively involved in the activity being debated.
Having an interest is one thing deliberately misleading for financial gain would be another. I think what maybe occuring is that people with an interest are being convicted without the slightest bit of evidence they MIGHT commit an ethical crime. There is a theory that we`re only just 6 or 7 people away from anyone in the World so to connect anyone to anything maybe a lot easier than you think.
I think input from those with an interest should be welcome but should require scrutiny but it should get that anyway should it not. We can say the same about anyone taking advice from advisers, do the advisers have an interest ? Did Alistair Campbell have an interest ?
My Lady`s interest is often ” Freedom of Speech”, you don`t directly earn or profit from it but indirectly it`s your goal. Should Bills that effect those freedoms be put out of your bounds ? We all have interest and those interests do benefit us even if it`s only to say I did the right thing and make us feel good.
This is going to become useful fodder during the phony war leading up to the General Election..
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5708648/burnhams-exocet-misfires.thtml
You raise here the important question of the conflict between reservoirs of expertise, on the one hand, and probity in public conduct, and perception thereof, on the other. I do not think there is an easy answer.
Back in my days in local government, one was expected to declare an interest if one, or a member of one’s family, had any pecuniary interest in an item. This extended, for example, to the interest of one’s employer. Whilst I cannot remember the precise wording, it was vaguer than this, and the interest did not have to be pecuniary.
The matter was taken to silly levels (IMHO), whereby members with an interest were expected to leave the room whilst such matters were debated, even though the sessions were public, often with the media (and presumably everyone else with an interest) present. Out they’d traipse to stand in the corridor, like naughty boys and girls in primary school, waiting to hear that the agenda item was over to join the rest of us, safely discussing items in which we had no interest whatsoever.
I did try declaring a lack of interest in many of them, though sadly this had none of the intended effect in invigorating the agendas.
Far higher standards are, of course, expected of local government than the Palace of Westminster. Which isn’t saying much. Higher standards are expected of the inmates in Broadmoor than the Palace of Westminster. But Dennis Skinner had a point when he said that there were members of the Thatcher administration who would have gone to prison if they had done what they did in local, as distinct from national, government.
In practice, though, the code hindered rather than advanced, democracy. If I was interested in something, I’d ask someone who I thought knew about it before the meeting rather than rely purely on officers’ reports, and certainly whether the person I was seeking information from was or wasn’t a councillor wouldn’t stop me, though obviously if they’d had a financial interest (I can’t remember one having one) I’d have bourn it in mind. So the code just pushed things under the carpet. Councillors with an interest were expected to attend group pre-meetings of party groups anyway, where everything was decided in practice (except when we were acting in a quasi-judicial function, such as in licensing or planning applications).
In nearly 10 years on a 33-member district council, I never knew of anyone attempting to abuse their position for gain. However, this did not stop alleged breaches of the code arising from time to time. In one case, a councillor who was a dual member of the district and county councils informed an officer on the latter of a suitable vacancy (which had been publicly advertised) which had arisen on the former, causing a ridiculous furore which preoccupied the membership from matters which should more properly have commanded its attention for weeks. Chaos theorists would have great fun studying it.
This, perhaps, does little to address the matter in hand in the Lords. But what I think matters most at any level of government is transparency, that people’s interests are a matter of public record, and that their contributions to debate can be viewed and judged in the light of those interests. This should not prevent contributions to debate being public (as they will occur anyway), though IMHO it should mean the loss of voting rights. But what also matters is consistency: it is improper and hypocritical for national government to insist on standards at a local level that it does not or cannot uphold itself. IMHO, there should not be separate codes for national and local government, or for the Lords as distinct from the Commons. There should be one code, setting high standards for all.
I suggest a good start might be made by burning all copies of the current local government model code, which can be viewed here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20071159_en_2
Also, I remember Lord Norton’s idea of a Lords committee stage for public bills (as distinct from a Committee of the Whole House) with persons being called to give evidence. Would this give an opportunity for such experts to come forward?
Last answers first to Stephen, who writes a most interesting post. No it would not, whether Noble Lord Norton’s idea or not!
The local government regs for declaration are broadly Rules of order regulations for all public debating chambers. Were they drafted by Erskine May?
I fear that there is such huge potential for bending the rules (a la Rugby football, ie that bending the rules is the game itself, and if it is attractive, then it becomes the rule un-bent) that, whatever anybody does, amending law, at ‘arms’ length, on behalf of a cousin or sleeping partner, or a reliable friend, will always be possible, when money or property rewards are involved.
When I came to the blog a while ago I was of the opinion that an unelected HoL was preferable to an elected one because it could act to counter some of the more obvious weaknesses acting within the Commons.
However, events have changed my mind.
Firstly, it seems that life peers come to the house having previously enjoyed universal suffrage only to be denied this on entry into the HoL; this as a back drop to hereditary peers who continue to enjoy such elective suffrage. This is surely a travesty because how can anybody committed to democracy deny the principle of suffrage to those who guard its best interests?
Secondly, if one examines the number of peers in second chambers around Europe the HoL sticks out like a sore thumb in the number of peers able to sit in the house, its quite frankly an embarrassment. With the imminent prospect of 1000 peers sitting in the house, the HoL has become a knocking shop for Commons patronage and abuse.
But what form should an elected house take? I gave my thoughts on this in Lord Tyler’s post:
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/11/25/putting-our-own-house-in-order/
If one accepts the principle that democracy must be relevant to the need an elected HoL based upon that which elects the Commons would not be relevant.
The question ‘When is an interest legitimate?’ disappears once the relevant constituencies have been established as peers would have a bone-fide reason for promoting constituency interests in an elected house.
Another travesty is that life peers are paying far too much tax as a result of their inability to derive a salary from any secondary employment in an unelected house.
Gareth Howell, Are you saying then that working in the Lords should not only be a voluntary unpaid activity but we should pay for the costs of working there ourselves? Should you perhaps think through what kind of chamber that would lead to?
“I did try declaring a lack of interest in many of them” Last man standing?
Baroness Murphy,
Yes I am saying that and I paid my on way in the corridor for seven years.It does mean that only people living near and get there and back in an afternoon, can do the job.
For people with commerical interests to declare, such as Soldiers or former government minsters looking for authoritative publicity for Mercenary businesses, they would not be discouraged
by the lack of pay.
But any way the real answer to the noble baroness is, that there would not be a second chamber at all, except as a Bill committee of the HofC, which is what it is any way.
Some of the Peers Select committee papers are valuable and interesting.
There are a great many people who are so much committed to status seeking throughout their lives that one more bit of ‘kudos’ is
irresistible!
House of commons for Bluffers, and self aggrandizers.
House of lords for accolade and Status seekers!
I doubt it would make much of a difference.
A few would still turn up.
Even fewer would turn up to committees.
ie. No change.
The only change would be in the numbers turning up to sign on, collect their expenses cheques.
As for changes to legislation. You as lords don’t make many changes. Most of those are corrections coming from the government. Actual changes originating in the Lords are few and far between.
The best solution is to abolish the Lords. All those part time Lords can then work full time and pay more taxes. [They are skilled workers with specialist skills aparently]
110 million is savings per year.
Nick: Amendments tabled by Government ministers do not necessarily originate with Government. (I thought that point had been made clear, but you seem to have difficulty grasping points made by others.) Ministers initially resist amendments moved by private Members, but listen to the case made for them and then discuss them with officials. If persuaded as to the merits, they then discuss them with the members concerned, with the minister bringing forward amendments to reflect the agreement reached. Some recent big bills have effectively been re-written in the Lords as a result of the amendments brought forward by peers. There is also the rather obvious point that looking at raw data is itself limited in its utility. One amendment may be of massive importance – sufficient in itself to justify the (rather limited) cost of the House for the whole year – whereas others may be simply amendments improving the drafting. Incidentally, abolishing the Lords would not save £110 million a year, since not all the expenditure is devoted solely to the work and infrastructure of the House of Lords.
“Are you saying then that working in the Lords should not only be a voluntary unpaid activity but we should pay for the costs of working there ourselves?” It depends?
I don’t know what Gareth’s reply is but in an elected house the constituency might pay for both a salary and expenses freeing peers from any direct dependency on the public purse.
As to the value of the salary itself it would depend on a peer’s gross income under self assessment. The aim might be to track the salary of an MP. Those earning more would not receive a salary, for the rest it would be pro rata.
I know you are retired but lets say that you were ten years younger and your primary employment came from the NHS. Depending on your attendance in the house in full days a retrospective split between your primary and secondary employment would decide who paid what between the NHS and the constituency for tax purposes.
The NHS would desire that you spend more time in the house to lower its costs whilst the constituency would want you back in the NHS to lower its costs. A balance would ensue. The NHS would pay an amount as a P&L charge to the constituency to support your salary; in doing so it would escape employer’s NIC on that amount.
For example, lets take a peer receiving 60k total income under self-assessment and the split was 50/50 HoL and primary employer. Like anybody else with a second job you would pay tax at 22% in both employments and NIC contributions only on your primary employment. The tax man would catch up with you under self- assessment. However, you would have some control over your constituency salary and could elect to divert some of it into a pension lowering your liability to pay tax at 40%.
As people who are retired pay no NIC, retired peers would be to some advantage. These financial arrangements would work to lower the average age in the house whilst ensuring that those in retirement were not disadvantaged. Would this be a threat to you? I don’t think so, but you would have some serious competition from your profession.
Working for no salary at the moment is a significant sacrifice by peers.
Noble Baroness,
Seeking accolades, and status are perhaps not bad things to seek. I employed a gardener without references who turned out to be a hardened criminal dedicated to doing wrong.
I had never come across such a person before in my own fairly sheltered life. The work of the devil and his handmaidens are, in some people, not surreptitious, are brazen and dedicated, to a life, and career, of crime, from an early age; a hardened criminal; a purveyor of evil deeds.
Seeking allowances for the pleasure of attending what is after all, only a good club,is agreeably trivial by comparison.
How many members of the Garrick Theatre club would be delighted to RECEIVE allowances for attending THEIR club, quite apart from steeply discounted prices for the wine from their own vineyard?(Garrick wine label)
How many knights of the SMOM (sovereign Military order Of Malta)Amalfitan, would be delighted to shed the burden of charitable donations, and to receive handsome allowances
for attendance, and get free wine from the Order’s 1500ha vineyard in Tuscany?
No! allowances for peers should be dropped entirely.
Peers should pay to attend; the house should be abolished, with the HofC attending the State Openings seated on the red benches themselves, along with 75-100 hered peers, and bishops until further notice!
Gareth
Twm O’r Nant and Nick you have to be joking right ?
Hand over everything carte blanche to the whims of Femdoms and Lord Chief High and Mighty Poo Bahs ? No Sirs not on your lives ! A lot of bad legislation has got through, in my opinion, but most has been watered down from the original through amendments in the HoL, thankfully.
You Sir`s appear to want to give Meddlesome and Harwoman absolute power ! My God the thought is horrendous !
How many of those bad laws that do not directly affect our esteemed elected members would get repealed ? None I suspect, so bad law would compound bad law until the people cried enough.
I will grant that the Lords is imperfect but at least it may serve as a deterrent to those power seekers who know that their view is correct and no one else matters. As a member of the public I have found at least some Lords who will listen to logic and reason unlike MP`s who have a Government line to toe and will not stray for fear.
A second house MUST exist without which a demi-dictatorship would ruin our nation bringing it to it`s knees through personal agenda`s and leadership climbing. I would rather an imperfect second house, knowing bills have had reasonable scrutiny than allowing person`s whose integrity and very human core I doubt have complete and utter power.
How could you give complete power to people elected because my Dad voted Labour or Labour represents working class, or even because the Sun newspaper say`s they`re better ?
I`ll grant the Lords do not do enough to stop ridiculous law, that even in the second house party politics is above the people but is this the Lords or the stupidity of the system making a difficult job at times impossible. Common sense does not prevail at times and the people get little relief from law that is far from democratic. I have written vast amounts(to me) of information on the Digital Bill in the hope of amendments as have others, we feel here we are at least allowed a platform where we can put logic and sensible debate forward in the hope of amendments. Amendments that would not occur if such a second house did not exist allowing Government to ride rough shod over the people, implementing law which at times appears to come from idea`s dreamed up outside even our Nation by Industries who are non elected, or personal agenda`s of how each of us should conduct our lives.
Without a second house you would give rise to revolution, a battle won will often appease those that could seek war. Without a second house what is to stop the Mwugabes who would legislate themselves into office forevermore ?
Give a horse his head without rein and sooner or later he`ll leave you trampled beneath his hooves in the dust.
L. Norton. You’re attempting yet again to twist what is going on.
I’ve never claimed that all amendments were govenment amendments. However, at the time of your previous attempts to justify the excessive costs of the Lords on the grounds that the Lords made lots of amendments and that these weren’t of govenment origin, that I felt it necessary to make a FOI request. The FOI department at the Lords certainly works, far better than any other FOI department I’ve come across. So if you see Alex, you can thank him.
For the 2008-2009 session (3 December 2008 – 12 November 2009):
Total number of amendments tabled to public bills: 6363 Government amendments made: 1748 Non-Government amendments made: 76 Total number of amendments made: 1824 Total number of amendments tabled but not made: 4539 (we do not keep a record as to whether these are Government or non-Government)
So, from the figures from the Lords FOI department, we can clearly see that 22% come from the ‘independent’ lords.
Not particularly productive for the millions you cost.
Nick: None of the data you quote (which are readily available) contradicts what I have written. The data has no relevance to where the amendments originate. They relate only to who tabled the amendments.
“There is no shortage of men and women in this country with the qualities of integrity and altruism upon which our traditions of public service is based.”
Standards in Public Life, 1995, Lord Nolan.
Was he wrong to support secondary employment for MPs? I prefer to endorse his views than believe we are all born evil but really can’t see that his Seven Principles are held in universal esteem.
There are tests a person has to pass before becoming a public official, whether appointed, employed, or elected. At this point, the person being tested is presumed to be telling the truth. Equally, it is up to those who are testing to determine if the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is being disclosed. This suggests to me that the appointments process needs to be wholly transparent and accountable.
Carl,
it is a good thing that there is no monarchist party in parliament by name, or discussing such matters would be far more difficult.
I am in favor of further reduction, but not complete removal of the excess adipose tissue.
The 75-100 hereds to remain but the HofC to fill the red leather benches for the state opening. NO PAY allowance or emolument,for any member!
The Hereds have ways of earning a living from parliament, out of all proportion to their own commitment to it.
Senex’s ideas are rather well thought out and may apply equally to the house of commons.
I am quite surprised that the idea of NO pay/emoluments/allowances for Peers has been discussed. I was only thinking of the way one of the noble number here had refered us to the comparison between the costs of the two chambers, and it seemed to me that, athough the cost is much lower for the Peers’ house,the comparison itself was odious.
Senex may be able to advise on whether Members of either place should be treated as
directors of Great Britain limited or as employees of the state, or a bit of both?
In one case that may mean there are 750+650=1400 directors of GB plc in the two places in total.
Lord Chamberlain deals with the accounts in the one place and Lord speakers dept in the other.
Is that right?
To suggest that Peers should treat the House of lords as a worthy charity, is apparently
too strong a pill for the noble Baroness Doctor Murphy to administer to herself,but then Westminster will never be a Vatican city, unless of course the “Pope and the Witch” is ever performed again at the comedy Theatre which I doubt, in which case Frances de La Tour will make suitable arrangements!!!!!
The sweet she gave me from the stage tasted more like the narcotic she has just provided to the Papa himself, and which he was very much enjoying. In fact he was out cold, papal attire and all.
“To suggest that Peers should treat the House of lords as a worthy charity, is apparently
too strong a pill ”
Saying that if the noble lords’ house were to follow the example of that other Sovereignty
the SMOM, sovereign military order of Malta, since the Roman Catholic charity has performed acts of medical mercy ever since the Crusades, it is not surprising that a good many of the Nobles of the order are themselves Surgeons or in the medical profession. Thus they ARE paid.
To draw the comparison in that case with the HofL, Supreme court Lawyers would be able to claim wages, since legislation is the main business of the house, but everybody else would be making charitable contributions!
Since the Bench of Law Lords has just moved out, wages/allowances/emoluments should be abolished and membership contributions made a necessity.
£3000/annum would not be excessive.
May I remember on this occasion the late 2nd Viscount Furness who dedicated his estate to the OstJ/SMOM in his will when he died in 1997. A great servant of the state of the UK as leader of the HofL and a fine servant of the Order of Malta.
“It is a good thing that there is no monarchist party in parliament by name, or discussing such matters would be far more difficult.”
I`m sure I could rely on Baroness D`Souza for protection in terms of freedom of speech.
“The Hereds have ways of earning a living from parliament, out of all proportion to their own commitment to it.”
I`m sure Lord Sugar and others are not too far behind in that sphere, indeed MP`s themselves surely cannot manage on a paltry 64k ? The obvious biographies and after dinner speaking alone make being PM worth far more than the miserly £172k for ruining…sorry running the Country.
So maybe all politic should be voluntary, after all you and I seem to do it for fun and the professional advisors will still be paid and be there. Is it not the advisors who actually run the Country, were they not the ones who said about WDM ? Surely the Chancellor doesn`t do all those sums himself, night after night on his calculator ?
It obviously has to be the advisors, we hear so many politicians promise this and that only to get elected and renege…They wouldn`t break a promise without good reason would they ? It must be on advice from professionals ! Even Barak hasn`t got his troops out of Iraq as promised ….on advice of course.
I say let`s pull all the politicians out and let the advisors who are paid anyway run the Country. Saves all the worry of the poor Ministers having to decide between bad choice and worse.
Funny I don`t remember voting for these advisors.
😉
“you and I seem to do it for fun”
It has been an amateur calling or career for me. When you don’t enjoy what you do, then don’t do something else.
Continuing with the hypothesis of amateur and charitable peers, and the fine example of the SMOM (Sovereign Military Order of Malta, it needs to be said that the HQ of the Order is in Rome, based of course on its commitment to the Roman empire.
Such is not the case with their Lordships; the Peerage is the Order of Monarchy of the
British Empire, so to suggest that they should make charitable contributions themselves would be like asking the Cardinals
to pay the Pope.
Yes the Bishops bench would have to stay even after the abolition of all allowances, and the introduction of membership fees.
Or a la Edward Lear… like asking the church mouse to feed the vicar. The mouse can’t do it because the vicar is too big and any way what about the organist’s sandwiches?
One thing most of you agree on is that this is not too easy a problem to solve. What I neglected to mention in the original blog is that the new Code of Conduct has two crucial elements:
i. that all peers at all times act in the public interest
ii. that behaviour ultimately should be judged by that old and useful standard – what the ordinary man in the street might deem reasonable.
Those of you (eg Croft, stephenpaterson) who recogise that overlegislation can result in unenforceable absurdity might also accept that the starting point should be the concept of honour. Peers are appointed to do a job of work and to carry it out with integrity.
While one can legislate on systems,(such as transparent appointments, proper accountability on expenses, declarations of monetary interest), these systems will only work as long as there is a culture of honour. This implies being aware at all times of the public interest – no matter how much one is paid by a pharmeceutical company providing the relevant peer has declared that pecuniary advantage AND that s/he is promoting the public good – then should this not suffice?
I think we thought the Commons had such a code and it turned to dust once an attempt was made to use the law to apply it. ‘Honour’ is perhaps socially enforcible but not legally, though I suspect many politicians are so thick skinned and certain of their own righteousness that public contempt, if they show no honour, is water off a ducks back…:-(
“Then should this not suffice?”
The fact it needs to be a rule/law in itself means it is not sufficient.
What the public despise, and that word is harsh but true, is the fact that when people in this position transgress they appear to be treated more leniently that than a member of the public. If a teacher crosses boundaries regards relationships with pupils they will alway`s be treated more harshly because they are in a position of trust and power. This doesn`t seem to be the case with our “honourable” politicians and the old school tie seems to make a great difference in treatment.
Because of their position, of their power and advantage they should, if they transgress, be treated more harshly after all they are committing crimes against the people and Nation. Alternately they can do what every honourable esteemed Brit would do in the circumstances and be allowed an empty room and a loaded revolver.
When a drug addict or poor person steals there is some mitigation, when a Lord or MP fiddles expenses or uses his/her position for personal gain there is no excuse. The British public have yet to see anyone be made an example of in abuse of power cases. How can politicians be trusted, be looked up upon for example, be held in esteem as honourable people when it appears they are protected by their own. Like Doctors it appears the ranks close and no one will grass. It`s no better than the Mafia infact.
If you truly want to make Parliament a better place harsher penalties have to be in place. You are above the people, you are expected to be better but at present are seen as lower than common criminals, apologies for that but it is true. Most people would rather trust organised crime than politicians and that is a travesty.
remember on this occasion the late 2nd Viscount Furness who dedicated his estate to the OstJ/SMOM in his will when he died in 1997. A great servant of the state of the UK as leader of the HofL and a fine servant of the Order of Malta.
My own quote.
I should of course have said the “gracious”
dedication of his substantial estates to the cause of the Hospitallers Order, now the SMOM
(Sovereign Military Order) to which he dedicated his life, and of which he was Prince of the Sub-order of Fortescue!
May their charitable hospitaller, healing works thrive, throughout the world.