Two Labour peers face suspension
being found guilty of misconduct.
Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were
accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange
for cash.
The two men denied the allegations but they now face sanctions following
a probe by a House of Lords Committee.
Labour's leader in the House of Lords described the allegations against
the two men as "very serious".
The Conservatives said the development represented a "bleak day" for the
House of Lords.
Parliamentary vote
The Lords Privileges Committee has recommended the two men be suspended
from the House for up to six months after an investigation into
allegations made against four Labour peers.
“ The two peers fell short of what both this House and the country are
entitled to expect ”
Lord Strathclyde, Conservative leader in the House of Lords
The final decision on their fate will rest with the House of Lords
itself, which will vote on whether to exclude them next week.
If it is approved, the suspension could take effect immediately and last
until November - when this year's parliamentary session ends.
Two other Labour peers - the former minister Lord Moonie and Lord Snape
- were cleared of wrongdoing, but invited to make apologies to the Lords
for showing an "inappropriate attitude" to parliamentary rules banning
paid advocacy.
The BBC's political correspondent Gillian Hargreaves said it was
exceptionally rare for members of the Upper House to be suspended, the
last case of its kind being in the 17th Century.
The Sunday Times alleged the two peers were prepared to change proposed
legislation while it was passing through the Lords in return for money -
which would have been in clear breach of parliamentary rules.
These rules state that peers should not seek to influence legislation in
return for money.
'Falling short'
The Sunday Times released details of secretly recorded conversations
Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor had with its reporters.
The reporters were posing as lobbyists for a foreign retail firm which,
they claimed, wanted to set up stores in the UK and get an exemption
from business rates.
The peers discussed what help they might give them and how parliamentary
procedure worked.
The two men maintained they had never discussed taking money in return
for seeking to alter legislation.
Neither men actually accepted any money but the Lords committee found
they had broken rules governing the behaviour of its members in relation
to paid advocacy.
In a statement to Parliament, Labour leader Baroness Royall said the
allegations against the two men were "very serious" and the House faced
having to take "very serious" decisions about potential penalties.
But she stressed the Lords also had an obligation to be fair to the
peers concerned in terms of how they were treated.
For the Conservatives, Lord Strathclyde said the two men had "fallen
short of what both the House and the country is entitled to expect" from
its public representatives.
While a sanction of six months' suspension would be "severe", he said he
believed it was "fully deserved" in this case.
The allegations against the four men were initially investigated by the
Lords sub-committee on members' interests.
'Implausible'
It concluded Lord Truscott had broken rules on not exercising
parliamentary influence in return for money by agreeing to "smooth the
way" for lobbyists, make introductions to other peers and ministers and
to lobby officials.
The committee found the evidence against Lord Truscott "so clear and so
plentiful that we have little doubt that Lord Truscott was advertising
his power and willingness to influence Parliament in return for a
substantial financial inducement".
Lord Truscott contested this verdict as "outrageous" but it was upheld
by the privileges committee in its final report.
Lord Taylor's explanation that he was aware the lobbyists were in fact
journalists and he had continued to meet them in order to discover the
truth was dismissed as "inherently implausible" .
The police decided not to mount a criminal investigation into the case
earlier this year, citing the difficulty of obtaining evidence among
other factors.
The "cash for amendments" row is the latest in a series of recent
scandals to have damaged the integrity of Parliament.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ go/pr/fr/ -/1/hi/uk_ politics/ 8049412.stm
Posts
