| Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords | ||||||
|
1.1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life was set up in October 1994 by the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Major MP. The Committee's Terms of Reference were then prescribed as follows:
1.2 These terms of reference were extended in November 1997 by the present Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, to enable the Committee to undertake an enquiry into the funding of political parties. 1.3 The present Chairman, Lord Neill of Bladen QC, succeeded the first Chairman, the Rt Hon Lord Nolan, in November 1997. The Committee has produced six reports. They are listed in Appendix F to this report. They cover not only standards of conduct in the House of Commons and the Executive, but also in the Civil Service, local government, local public spending bodies (such as higher and further education institutions, housing associations and training and enterprise councils) and quangos such as non-departmental public bodies and national health service trusts. The purpose and scope of the present enquiry 1.4 Following publication in January 2000 of the Committee's Sixth Report, which included a review of the operation of the Commons' disciplinary procedures, the Committee decided to turn its attention to the arrangements in force in the House of Lords relating to conduct, registration of interests and related matters. 1.5 As explained in Chapter 4, the Committee had intended to conduct an enquiry in 1995 into these topics, but deferred consideration of them until the Griffiths Committee (appointed by the House of Lords in December 1994) had completed its work.2 1.6 In the event, this Committee further postponed its consideration of the House of Lords in order to make time for other pressing areas of study, such as local public spending bodies, local government and the funding of political parties. 1.7 This Committee's decision, taken in early 2000, to undertake an enquiry into the House of Lords was not prompted by any scandal or crisis. The House of Lords was, however, one of the remaining public bodies under the Committee's formal Terms of Reference, which had yet to be examined. The Committee concluded that an enquiry into the House of Lords would be timely and appropriate, having regard in particular to the changes in the membership of the House and its possibly higher public profile following those changes. 1.8 When on 13 March 2000 an announcement was made to the House of Lords as to our forthcoming inquiry the Rt Hon Viscount Cranborne questioned the power of the Committee to undertake any such inquiry.3 Shortly afterwards, on 10 April, Lord Rees-Mogg published an article in The Times that also challenged the authority of the Committee. Correspondence followed.4 Lord Rees-Mogg then tabled a motion in the following terms: "To move to resolve, That the House asserts its responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs and that the Sub-Committee of the Committee for Privileges should investigate the effectiveness of the House of Lords' Register of Interests". 5 To the foregoing motion the Rt Hon Lord Archer of Sandwell tabled an amendment. The motion as amended read as follows: "That the House welcomes the enquiry into Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and asserts the House's ultimate responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs." 6 After a debate in the House on 10 May 2000 the House passed the amended form of the Motion.7 1.9 Meanwhile, in April 2000, the Committee had published an Issues and Questions paper setting out the principal areas on which the Committee intended to focus and raising 16 questions relating to those areas. We asked whether the present arrangements governing the declaration and registration of peers'8 financial and other interests in the House of Lords were satisfactory, bearing in mind the constitutional and political changes that have taken place since the debate on the Griffiths Report on 1 November 1995 and having regard also to the increase in expectations concerning standards of conduct of public office-holders. We also raised, more generally, questions about the rules relating to the conduct of peers (including those governing paid advocacy) and as to whether the House of Lords should adopt a Code of Conduct. Finally, we considered what sanctions the House of Lords can impose on those found to be in breach of any rule relating to conduct and whether the range of penalties should be extended. 1.10 The present composition of the House of Lords is an interim arrangement. We do not speculate on the possible future composition of the second chamber in the long term. Our aim is to make recommendations which we believe to be appropriate to the present chamber, and which will provide a framework for self-regulation that can be adjusted to meet the needs of a future reformed House.9 The recommendations we make may need to be reviewed when the House of Lords is further reformed. The Committee 1.11 This Committee is an advisory body. It is independent of Government. It has no legal powers. In particular, it has no powers of enforcement and has, therefore, no power to impose any of its recommendations. 1.12 We should draw attention to the fact that three members of the Committee are themselves members of the House of Lords - the Chairman, and Lords Shore and Goodhart QC. They have each been members of the House for three years. These members participated fully in the preparation of this report, which was agreed unanimously by all members. Evidence gathering Written evidence 1.13 Our consultation paper was circulated widely within both Houses of Parliament and to members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to members of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and to a wide range of organisations (including national libraries and national and local newspapers). The paper was also distributed to a number of academics and other political commentators as well as to members of the public who showed an interest in our work. In addition to making the consultation paper available on the Committee's website, the consultation paper was made available, free of charge, to anyone requesting a copy. Almost 100 written submissions were received. 1.14 All written submissions (save those which we were advised might be considered defamatory) can be found on the CD-Rom which is included in Volume 2 of this report. A list of those submitting written evidence is at Appendix A. Research 1.15 The Committee commissioned preliminary research into the question of comparable second chambers but concluded that the House of Lords has unique characteristics as a public institution and that no real assistance can be derived from overseas comparisons. Public hearings 1.16 Between 26 June and 17 July 2000 the Committee took evidence at six days of public hearings. A list of witnesses who gave oral evidence, either on their own behalf or in a representative capacity, is set out in Appendix B. The transcripts of evidence given at the public hearings are published in Volume 2 of this report (and in the CD-Rom accompanying Volume 2). References in this report to the transcript are in terms of the day of the public hearing and indicate whether the evidence was taken at the morning or the afternoon session (for example, 'Day 2 (pm)').10 Acknowledgements 1.17 We would like to record
our thanks to those who took the time and trouble to make a written
submission. In addition, we thank in particular those who appeared before
us to give oral evidence. Committee members gained much knowledge and
enlightenment from these interchanges. We were fortunate to receive
evidence from a wide range of well-informed witnesses whose experience
and insights have proved extremely valuable. 1 Hansard
(HC) 25 October 1994, col 758.
10 On Day 3 and Day 4, the Committee took evidence only in the morning, so no sessions are named.
|
||||||
