Search
Talking Politics
Britain's besmirched Lords
Fri Oct 30 11:25AM
For hundreds of years Britain's noble lords were trusted to abide by the concept of "honour". The expenses scandal means those days are now over.It's been a "difficult year" for parliament.
That was the rather miserable assessment of Lord Eames, the man tasked with chairing the group which has redrafted the Lords' code of conduct.
They have spent the summer preparing a new code of conduct which seeks to give confidence to the members of the upper house.
They certainly need it.
In May, for the first time in 350 years, the Lords suspended two of its members.
Lords Truscott and Taylor had been caught by undercover journalists posing as lobbyists, appearing to offer to lay amendments to legislation in return for money.
Looking back at the brief debate which preceded the historic decision to suspend them for the duration of the current parliament, it's clear how many peers felt the reputation of the Lords had been seriously damaged.
As the attorney general, Baroness Scotland, put it: "All noble Lords are concerned about the honour of this House and would feel besmirched if any of our members behaved in such a way as to bring us all into disrepute."
The Lords are trying to do their best to restore confidence. Through Lord Eames' report they have outlined in much clearer detail how they will prevent a similar besmirching happening again.
An independent commission for standards will be set up, to investigate allegations of misconduct.
At the start of every parliament all peers will be asked to sign an undertaking to abide by the code of conduct.
And, from now on, all peers will be banned from acting as parliamentary consultants. They may still work for public affairs firms - but cannot do so if they are offering any "parliamentary advice".
The previous code of honour, introduced in 2001, placed the onus on members of the Lords to "act always on their personal honour".
Today's shakeup was sold as "the most far-reaching reform of the way standards of conduct are set and regulated in the House of Lords since 2001".
In fact the shift is much more significant.
It's not really clear why they've left the requirement for "honour" in the new code of conduct in the first place.
Back in May, moments before Lords Truscott and Taylor were given their marching orders, Baroness D'Souza reflected the thoughts of many when she assessed the significance of that strange word.
"My Lords, we live in a world of euphemisms - extraordinary rendition, collateral damage and quantitative easing - but I suggest that the word 'honour' still has the same currency that it has had for hundreds of years."
Peers were dismayed that the idea of a self-regulating House of Lords was finally to be abandoned. The establishment of a commissioner of standards ends the centuries-old idea of faultless nobility.
Lord Eames admitted his group had "debated long and hard" over whether or not to retain the concept.
That's as clear an admission as you'll ever get of division among his colleagues.
And when politics.co.uk pressed him to explain why the "honour" phrase had been retained he brought the issue back to its timeless fundamentals.
"In our discussions there was great support for the concept," he said.
"What we've tried to do is to link the personal code of honour application to what a reasonable person outside parliament would judge to be acceptable behaviour."
Crucially, he added: "We still believe this code of honour will outlive particularities of the time."
If, as Baroness D'Souza says, the word "honour" still retains its currency of old, peers will all feel a little besmirched. They will now be forced to sign a piece of paper telling them exactly how they must retain theirs.
"The reputation of parliament has been seriously damaged," Lord Eames reflected. Peers, previously trusted to leave themselves to themselves, are paying the price for their collective misdeeds.
Comment on this article
Video
Add to my Yahoo/RSS
Latest UK news
- Boy, 4, Found Stabbed To Death In London Flat SkyNews - 43 mins ago
- Police Name Woman Swept Away In River SkyNews - 1 hour 5 mins ago
- Hero's widow calls for more support for troops ITN - 1 hour 24 mins ago
- Royal Aide's Escape From Jail A 'Disgrace' SkyNews - 1 hour 29 mins ago
- Boy, 4, Stabbed To Death At South London Flat SkyNews - 1 hour 36 mins ago
MORE ON YAHOO! NEWS
Subscribe to our news feeds
Editor's Corner
SITE HIGHLIGHTS
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our: Updated Privacy Policy
Maybe it's because in earlier times the aristocracy already had an unwritten code of honour and knew how to act and took their responsibilities and duties which came with their position and breeding seriously. Nowadays you're getting any old political toadies and cronies being "elevated" to the Lords for political reasons - people who have no innate sense of responsibility or duty, and are guttersnipes and get rich quick merchants. The present shower of new Lords are the same as their dispicable dishonest cronies in the House of Commons - out to rip ordinary people off. Personally, I have no wish to be ruled by a bunch of political toadies and incompetents who have no sense of position or honour or duty. I wouldn't trust any of them to run a bath, let alone a country!
Report abuse
I think the Lords should never have changed and should have remained as it has been since parliament began with heredity peers passed on from generation to generation. It may not be ideal to some people and I am not saying that all heredity peers are honourable but most have been brought up with a code of honour and chivalry throughout the ages. Why fix something that wasn't broken?Some people that have had a peerage bestowed upon them in the 20th & 21st century do not know how to behave accordingly and think they are above themselves and don't realise that they have a standrad and responsibility to live up to!
Report abuse
well what do you exspect when a certain miss jay was given the task of reforming the house of lords by acertain t blair she packed it with a load of sleaze getters ie old mps and got rid of the real lords who under stood what honour meant and abided by it sadly the present crop we have are only interested in their own gains hence the present situation we have in both houses ie exspences scandles
Report abuse
No honour amongst thieves,and i am asking why that crooked c*n* Baroness Scotland is still in her job?DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!!!!!
Report abuse
Sadly the days of honour and chivalry are gone and we are much the worse for it. Take the ex Speaker as an example. The first to be removed in 300 years and he's elevated to the Lords? The present sleazy government has a lot to answer for and I fear that with the total change in our country due to overwhelming immigration we can never recover our history or standards. Unbelievably sad. Death of a nation.
Report abuse
Oh, Lords.
Report abuse
The House of Lords needs to be elected but according to territorial size not population size. Its representatives then need to be born and have lived for a minimum of 10 years in the area they are elected to represent. This is the only way to ensure that the House of Lords is not a carbon copy of the House of Commons where the majority of MPs are from London and are put in 'safe' seats despite having no regional ties to the area. Traditionally the House of Lords had vested interests in the regions they represented controlling most of the land and employing many of the local people. Now they have no interest in the area they represent and many know nobody in that region that they can honestly consider a close friend. How can such people be called representative of the voters?
The so called expertise in the House of Lords does not necessarily need to be in the chamber - MPs and Peers can easily seek expert advice else where before making a judgement on an issue. In fact it would probably be more healthy if experts of conflicting opinions were consulted and debated rather than just the hearsay of a single person/company.
Report abuse
YEAH - 5TH COMMENT!!!
Report abuse
The problem is that new peers are mainly supporters of global capitalism who would never get elected in a month of sundays. The only way they can be given cabinet jobs is by becoming peers. they are totally unrepresentative of the people and are unaccountable to anybody. If caught miausing public funds, they should be treated like any other public servant and summarily sacked.
Better still, do away with the whole outdated institution
LW
Report abuse
they are a bunch of old, sociopathic, perverted, motherfkrs.
Report abuse