Morning:
8°c
THE "cash-for-ermine" scandal has already embarrassed the Government. Now it casts a shadow over Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who, as we report today, has received gifts and a £3,000 donation from Lord Taylor, a peer who told undercover reporters that he could earn £100,000 as a paid lobbyist from just one client. The allegations may have further to run. Had it not been for an investigation by a Sunday newspaper, no one would have bothered to ask whether, and how, the process of amending legislation could be bought and paid for.
But the fact that four Labour peers were prepared to consider payment in return for assisting someone they thought to be a foreign businessman in getting changes made to the Business Rates Supplement Bill, going through Parliament, has prompted further useful scrutiny of peers' activities. The findings are rather more serious than Mr Straw's acceptance of a gift from a company that Lord Taylor was paid to advise. It now appears that one in five members of the Lords may be undertaking consultancy or advisory work for companies, interest groups or individuals. And today we learn that Lord Moonie, one of the peers approached by the paper, gave a parliamentary pass to a defence lobbyist.
Plainly, legislation passed by Parliament often has direct financial and regulatory implications for companies and interest groups; they want to influence the way the legislation is framed and revised. They can perfectly legally obtain advice from members of both Houses of Parliament for help in doing so and pay for that advice. But the public must know what our legislators do in return for their pay. As we are now aware, it may be discreet lobbying of middle-ranking clerks who frame legislation as much as open intervention in debates. At present, members of the Lords must declare what they earn for parliamentary lobbying activities; other consultancy work need not be specified. We need greater transparency about how much they earn, from whom, and for what.
Further, there needs to be more meaningful sanctions for erring peers than being named and shamed; indeed, in some cases their capacity for shame seems limited. The present rules may have had some force when the Lords was dominated by hereditary peers with their own code of conduct; they cut little ice now.
Safety first
THREE of the biggest rail unions have joined forces to draw attention to cutbacks by Network Rail in the way it maintains and inspects the rail infrastructure and job cuts by rail operators. In a letter to the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, the union chiefs say "we fear conditions are being created which could lead to another Hatfield, Potters Bar or Grayrigg" - in other words, to loss of life in a rail accident.
Of course the unions are looking after their members' interests; they want to protect up to 2,000 rail jobs that could be lost if maintenance and inspection work and staff levels at stations are cut back. They have grounds for concern. Network Rail has announced it is deferring the replacement of some worn tracks and signals, though it strongly denies this compromises safety, and operators have made cutbacks which could affect station manning.
Whatever the economic conditions, passenger safety cannot be diminished. Routine signal maintenance and track inspections are not legitimate areas for cost-cutting. Mr Hoon should seek proper answers to the unions' concerns; on this occasion they speak for passengers, too.
And celebrating...
OYSTER CARDS FOR ALL. Finally, the last hurdles have been removed in the way of allowing rail travellers in London to enjoy the benefits of the Oyster card. South West Trains, which had resisted joining the scheme, has dropped its opposition. Now pay-as-you go passengers can travel with an Oyster card from this autumn. It's integrated travel at last.
Reader views (3)
Not only should legislation apply to current Peers but should also apply to other shamed Peers, Lord Archer, Lord Black and Lord Watson who have all received criminal convictions.
- David Foster, Stafford, UK, 01/02/2009 11:01
Report abuse
"At present, members of the Lords must declare how much they earn for parliamentary lobbying activities; other consultancy work need not be specified. We need greater transparency about how much they earn, from whom, and for what."
You miss the point. It is not the fact that non-parliamentary consultancy fees do not have to be stated that is the problem.
It is the very strong grounds for suspicion that peers are deliberately and fraudulently certifying under rule 12d, rather than 12a-c which covers those fees arising from lobbying or their position as a peer.
They should all be made to demonstrate, for each so-called non-parliamentary consultancy, that they actually possess relevant abilities, skills or experience so as to render that employment credible at the price paid, assuming they were not a peer.
If they are unable to do so convincingly, then they should be treated as the crooks, racketeers and shysters they are. Expulsion from the Lords and fines set at least at the level of the monies they received with no limit on backdating.
- An Ex-Apprentice, Peterborough UK, 27/01/2009 15:55
Report abuse
All those peers accused of corruption must be named - and a police investigation conducted. If found guilty they must be punished severely and stripped of their titles. Punishment would preferably be a custodial sentence. Only by doing so will any sense of shame be felt. Only by doing so will respect for the house of lords be restored. Alas, the current situation is another of Blair's legacies.
- Outraged, Yorks, UK, 27/01/2009 11:44
Report abuse
