This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7849812.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Q&A: Peers cash claims Q&A: Peers cash claims
(2 days later)
Allegations have been made about the conduct of four members of the House of Lords.Allegations have been made about the conduct of four members of the House of Lords.
The Sunday Times reported that each discussed amending legislation in return for cash, prompting calls for an investigation. All four deny the story.The Sunday Times reported that each discussed amending legislation in return for cash, prompting calls for an investigation. All four deny the story.
What are the allegations?What are the allegations?
The Sunday Times says that four Labour peers offered to make amendments to legislation in return for cash payments of up to £120,000. The newspaper claims its reporters approached the four peers pretending to be lobbyists acting for a company. This firm, they said, wanted to set up a chain of shops in the UK and were seeking exemption from current laws on business rates.The Sunday Times says that four Labour peers offered to make amendments to legislation in return for cash payments of up to £120,000. The newspaper claims its reporters approached the four peers pretending to be lobbyists acting for a company. This firm, they said, wanted to set up a chain of shops in the UK and were seeking exemption from current laws on business rates.
What rules govern the conduct of peers?What rules govern the conduct of peers?
Members of the House of Lords are bound by a parliamentary code of conduct governing their behaviour. This outlaws peers from accepting financial incentives in return for voting in a certain way, asking specific questions or promoting any particular issue. Peers, the code says, must "never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence". Any peers trying to amend proposed laws in return for cash would be breaking the rules.Members of the House of Lords are bound by a parliamentary code of conduct governing their behaviour. This outlaws peers from accepting financial incentives in return for voting in a certain way, asking specific questions or promoting any particular issue. Peers, the code says, must "never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence". Any peers trying to amend proposed laws in return for cash would be breaking the rules.
Are peers paid?
Unlike MPs, there is no salary for "being a peer". But they get an allowance of £335.50 for every day they attend the House of Lords. This consists of £174 for overnight accommodation, £86.50 for "day subsistence" and £75 for office costs. Peers do not pay tax on their allowances. Some peers are paid salaries. The Lord Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the Principal Deputy Chairman receive money from the House of Lords budget, while government ministers are paid by the relevant Whitehall departments. The 12 Law Lords are also paid by the government.
What are peers allowed to do?What are peers allowed to do?
Peers are not paid a salary and it is perfectly legal for them to provide general advice and to act as consultants for outside interests, as long as this does not directly influence their conduct. However, there are concerns that the existing rules are not clear enough and contain potentially dangerous loopholes. If a peer asked another member to put down an amendment to a bill, in return for cash from a third party, this would "technically" be allowed. But this would raise real questions about their actions and about parliamentary standards.Peers are not paid a salary and it is perfectly legal for them to provide general advice and to act as consultants for outside interests, as long as this does not directly influence their conduct. However, there are concerns that the existing rules are not clear enough and contain potentially dangerous loopholes. If a peer asked another member to put down an amendment to a bill, in return for cash from a third party, this would "technically" be allowed. But this would raise real questions about their actions and about parliamentary standards.
Do peers declare earnings?
They have to name the companies or organisations for which they act. The House of Lords code of conduct says they are "not required to disclose how much they earn" but "may do so if they wish".
What are the peers themselves saying?What are the peers themselves saying?
Three of the four peers whose conduct has been questioned, Lords Truscott, Moonie and Taylor, have told the BBC that they deny any wrongdoing and that no money changed hands. According to the Sunday Times, Lord Snape issued a statement "saying that he had made it clear to the reporters that he was unable to 'initiate or amend any legislation on behalf of an individual or a company'".Three of the four peers whose conduct has been questioned, Lords Truscott, Moonie and Taylor, have told the BBC that they deny any wrongdoing and that no money changed hands. According to the Sunday Times, Lord Snape issued a statement "saying that he had made it clear to the reporters that he was unable to 'initiate or amend any legislation on behalf of an individual or a company'".
How has the government reacted?How has the government reacted?
Baroness Royall, the leader of the House of Lords, says she is "deeply concerned" by the allegations, which she says damage the reputation of Parliament. She says she has spoken to the four members concerned and will do so again to establish their side of the story. She says an internal investigation by the appropriate House of Lords committee should begin as quickly as possible. But she has also indicated she will conduct her own inquiry.Baroness Royall, the leader of the House of Lords, says she is "deeply concerned" by the allegations, which she says damage the reputation of Parliament. She says she has spoken to the four members concerned and will do so again to establish their side of the story. She says an internal investigation by the appropriate House of Lords committee should begin as quickly as possible. But she has also indicated she will conduct her own inquiry.
What are the other parties saying?What are the other parties saying?
The Conservatives and Lib Dems have expressed concern at the allegations. Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke has called for the independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to look into the matter, something that can only be triggered by a formal complaint. Lib Dem leader peer Lord Oakeshott said the House of Lords authorities were "toothless" and radical reforms were needed to allow it to police itself more effectively.The Conservatives and Lib Dems have expressed concern at the allegations. Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke has called for the independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to look into the matter, something that can only be triggered by a formal complaint. Lib Dem leader peer Lord Oakeshott said the House of Lords authorities were "toothless" and radical reforms were needed to allow it to police itself more effectively.
What happens next?What happens next?
The Sub-Committee on Members Interests in the House of Lords, which scrutinises peers' behaviour, is likely to investigate the allegations. It is chaired by Baroness Prashar of Runnymede and its members include former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and former head of MI5 Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller. The Committee on Standards and Privileges in Public Life might also look into the allegations. The Sub-Committee on Members' Interests in the House of Lords, which scrutinises peers' behaviour, is likely to investigate the allegations. It is chaired by Baroness Prashar of Runnymede and its members include former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and former head of MI5 Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller. The Committee on Standards and Privileges in Public Life might also look into the allegations.
If found guilty, what will happen to the peers?If found guilty, what will happen to the peers?
Baroness Royall has acknowledged that there aren't many sanctions available to the House of Lords to punish errant members. Unlike in the Commons, a member cannot be stripped of the party whip, suspended or ultimately deselected. At the very worst, a report into the behaviour of a member could be debated in Parliament and they could be "named and shamed".Baroness Royall has acknowledged that there aren't many sanctions available to the House of Lords to punish errant members. Unlike in the Commons, a member cannot be stripped of the party whip, suspended or ultimately deselected. At the very worst, a report into the behaviour of a member could be debated in Parliament and they could be "named and shamed".
Will this lead to further reform of the House of Lords?Will this lead to further reform of the House of Lords?
Critics say this kind of incident shows the need for a radical overhaul of the upper chamber, which is generally under less scrutiny than its fully elected counterpart. The SNP says members of the House of Lords are unaccountable and the body is "unsustainable" in its current form. Proposals for further reform have become bogged down in recent years. In 2007, MPs backed plans for a fully elected Lords but peers rejected them. At the moment, all peers are appointed apart from 92 hereditary members who survived the first stage of Lords reform. A recent report by MPs called for tighter "vetting" of candidates, with the criteria by which appointments are made published.Critics say this kind of incident shows the need for a radical overhaul of the upper chamber, which is generally under less scrutiny than its fully elected counterpart. The SNP says members of the House of Lords are unaccountable and the body is "unsustainable" in its current form. Proposals for further reform have become bogged down in recent years. In 2007, MPs backed plans for a fully elected Lords but peers rejected them. At the moment, all peers are appointed apart from 92 hereditary members who survived the first stage of Lords reform. A recent report by MPs called for tighter "vetting" of candidates, with the criteria by which appointments are made published.