Gladiatorial Grant Shapps has reminded police to get their act together 
over the “cash for peerage” investigation, which has already had three extensions.
I’m sure one of those under scrutiny, former Cambridge-based biotech millionaire Sir Chris Evans, wishes the same. He hopes to be cleared for what he claims was a straight forward £1 million loan to the Labour Party.
He is convinced there is a “witch hunt” going on in the peerages row, which has embroiled the Government, and he longs for it to be over.
Sir Chris told his local paper (no link, I’m afraid):
“I haven’t done anything wrong and I am sick of playing ball with these people.The Labour Party has promised to return all the loan, plus interest next month…..I feel as if I am walking around with two massive lead balls on my shoulders ….I wish I had never got involved.”
His supporters claim it would not have made sense for him to have tried to “buy” a peerage as he would have been an obvious choice for the House of Lords anyway, not only for his allegiance to Labour, but for his scientific expertise. So how can we differentiate between genuine loans and those that are tarnished with sleaze and self-gratification?
That’s why capping loans makes sense, as well as some form of state funding. The latter may become a huge necessity as donors will have had their fingers badly burnt from this experience and all parties will be poorer both financially, as well as by reputation.
I would be very surprised if the House of Lords Appointments Commission did not have had all the relevant background info regarding loans made to all political parties, I wonder if their suspicions have ever been aroused and they have rejected a dodgy looking nomination? Or have they all approved?
Btw, reading up about Sir Chris, I discovered some interesting facts; he is the son of a steelworker born in Port Talbot and had a poor childhood, he started his biotech empire in a Nissen hut – and he took his wife to meet the Pope on their first date. Now that is impressive. He also loves drinking vintage wine while watching Coronation Street. He sounds an ok sort of guy to me.
Update: 22 October, Sunday Times report on plans to reform HoL.
That’s true;p as you say, there are some genuine people out there who deserve a peerage. Those people who get it will be stained by others who will think they ‘bought it’.
The current form of the Lords makes “cash for peerages” or the excessive appointment of life peers absolutely inevitable. The second chamber should be directly elected. But not by First-Past-the-Post which would produce the same political makeup as the HoC, removing the lords ability (or, indeed, wish) to take a critical look at proposed legislation. A possible solution would be to have staggered elections (all upper house elections would not be conducted on the same day but at intervals as in the US) to a lets say 250 ( I am not sure about how members there should be) member upper House using the Single Transferable vote (as opposed to the PR list system that is used for European Parliamentary elections in Great Britain currently). As for ensuring the supremacy of the Commons – keep the Parliament Act. It means the Upper Chamber can have a powerful scrutiny role, without overthrowing the popularly-elected, first-past-the-post Commons.
Agree with your main points, please check out the Young Foundation’s website for their recommendation on capping and match funding, it has got to be better than this cloak and dagger.sleazy funding of parties. Ps if anybody gets charged over cash for peerages I will be the first to be amazed.
I don’t believe capping could ever be made to work as the clever lawyers would ride a coach and horses through any such proposals – on both sides of the political divide.
Also, as a taxpayer, even a politically committed one, I strongly object to political parties becoming State funded.
What we need, instead, is a House of Lords which is 100% democratically elected. The lesser honours, from knighthoods down should be taken away from being in the Prime Minister’s gift and decided upon by a non-political body, appointed by the Sovereign, in whose name, incidentally, such awards are supposed to be given.
End of problem!
Peter from Putney,
A 100% democratically elected HoL is the only solution- anything else is just tinkering with what is an inherently flawed system.
Guthrum, I agree with you about no charges bieng made because the prosecution would have to prove “intent”, and that’s always difficult unless there is any documentary evidence or someone is prepared to stand up and testify that a conversation took place confirming that they were given the cash as a bribe.
Having a democratically elected HoL is another solution, except there is so much voter apathy for the Westminster, would our voters turn up for this? And how many people actually know what happens in the HoL? I imagine it’s a totaly mystery for them.
Ellee – Virtually every major Western democracy has an upper chamber – so these must be considered to have some worthwhile purpose.
As well as being 100% democratic, I would also like to see the HoL elections taking place in mid-term so as to keep the Government of the day in check!
Peter, my main concern about electing members to the Lords is how to get the message across to the public.
The government is going to bring forward plans whereby the upper chamber would be sharply reduced from 741 to about 450 members. Members would be limited to serving for about 12 years instead of staying for life, as most do now. Better than the current system granted but far short of what I would have hoped for.
I thought Cameron siad he was going to do something for pensioners?