.png)
4 days ago
13
Not much about the House of Lords is defensible on principles of democratic representation. One plausible merit of an appointed chamber is that specialists might be recruited to apply non-political expertise in legislative scrutiny. Appointees are certainly not supposed to use their privileged position to advance the interests of paying clients.
After a Guardian investigation, two peers were disciplined this week for breaking lobbying rules. Lord Dannatt, a former head of the British army who served as a crossbencher, and Lord Evans of Watford, a businessman and Labour peer, have been suspended for four and five months respectively. Both men were recorded by undercover Guardian reporters posing as property developers, discussing ways in which their Westminster contacts might be useful to advance potential clients’ access.
The code of conduct for peers forbids the provision of parliamentary services for “payment or reward”. In a subsequent investigation, the Lords standards commissioner identified breaches by both men. Lord Dannatt had corresponded with ministers and officials about companies in which he held a financial interest. Lord Evans had sponsored events in parliament for a company owned by his son in which he had shares.
These are unlikely to be exceptional cases. The upper chamber is overpopulated, poorly scrutinised and full of seasoned political operators, including party donors. It is culturally predisposed to scandals of this nature. It has more than 800 members. They are not salaried but claim a tax-free daily allowance of £371, plus expenses, payable regardless of how meaningfully they participate in the legislative process. In the 2019-24 parliament, 10% of peers accounted for more than half of contributions to the chamber. Multiple outside interests are normal.
Too many peers treat the Palace of Westminster as little more than an exclusive members’ club, enjoying the status for its own sake or for the networking opportunities. Monetising the latter is easy, as this newspaper’s investigations have shown.
Lobbying scandals are not confined to the Lords. Anyone with credible access to corridors of power is a potential target for businesses and other interests hoping to short-circuit formal channels of consultation. It is not illegal for a company to want to get a point of view across to a minister, nor is it necessarily unethical for former politicians to apply their experience as consultants. But the loyalty of serving parliamentarians is meant to be to the public. Even just a perception of conflicts of interest corrodes confidence in the political process.
Some of these issues can be addressed with tougher regulation and greater transparency. In the Commons, rules around MPs taking paid consultancy work were tightened last year, although second jobs are still permitted. The essentially absurd character of the Lords will always be a problem. Reform was promised in Labour’s manifesto last year, although the ambition has shrunk as the government has been bogged down in other business. A bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers – a preposterous archaism – is, predictably, meeting resistance in the upper house.
Any merit in outside experts sitting in the legislature is poor compensation for the lack of accountability in a system that packs the upper chamber with political appointees. Every scandal featuring peers is a reminder that British democracy is incomplete as long as the Lords is unreformed.
