Feature: What’s the problem with the Lords?
By Blaine Williams
With four Labour MPs allegedly accepting money to try and change the law in favour of their clients, the Lords now has to take a long hard look in the mirror. This goes deeper than the four who have been ‘named and shamed’, the whole House appears to be in disrepair and in desperate need of reform.
The House of Lords has little regulation because it rests on the assumption that it is populated by people who know how to behave. But the calls for reform and the tightening of regulation must be waking the Lords who go to the chamber to sleep off their hearty lunch.
The new allegations expose the flaws in the informal ‘self regulation’ of the Lords. Paid advocacy is prohibited by the code of conduct: a peer “must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”. But there are loopholes that remained unchecked.
A peer may influence one of their colleagues to amend the bill for them. This sidesteps the code of conduct but runs in the face of the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that all peers are expected to adhere to.
The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed nearly all hereditary peers, making it much more active as a legislative chamber. There is a greater chance of getting a bill amended in the Lords than Commons because the House does not rely on government whips.
Peers must disclose all their business links, including ‘non- parliamentary consultancies’ to the register of members. They are allowed to vote on issues relating to their interests but must declare any conflicts no less than 24 hours before the vote.
This does not stop a peer sidestepping the rules, as they can potentially persuade some of their colleagues to vote in favour of what they want.
There is no penalty for breaking these rules apart from being named and shamed and made to give a public apology. Baroness Royall, leader of the House, has said this will change.
She said: “If there are wrongs, they must be righted,” she wrote in the Guardian.
“I will be recommending that we should be able to take a range of actions as necessary, including being able to suspend peers immediately while an investigation is being carried out, longer periods of suspension if cases are proven, and even consider the option not of removing peerages – [that is] not in the gift of the House – but of even longer and perhaps permanent exclusions in extreme cases. If the current allegations are proven, we may need as well to consider emergency sanctions if warranted.”
The response to the allegations reflects how quickly the scandal is expanding into a general call for reform. Yesterday, Lord O’Neill withdrew amendments because he felt it “inappropriate in the current climate to pursue them”.
This is not a case of a few bad apples, but of a dodgy barrel. The reputation of the second chamber is damaged and will need serious renovation to once again have any kind of confidence from the public. In short, it will need the sort of regulation everyone else has already gotten used to.
