POLITICS

The time has come to look at sleaze in ermine.

The Upper House has long been a gravy train

BORIS JOHNSON

I you have a spare half hour in the next I two years, get along to the House of Lords. After 800 years of doing nothing in particu- lar, and doing it rather well, their lordships are on the endangered list. In just one of Labour's gross acts of spite against the British constitution, Tony Blair wants to wreck the place by banning the 750 heredi- tary peers who like to use it as a high-class club, substituting an appointed Quango full of self-important busybodies.

Some of the peers, regrettably, are hand- ing ammunition to their enemies. With the Commons Privileges Committee due soon to report- soon on cash for questions, the time has come to look at sleaze in ermine. The story began last month with the extraordinary faux pus of Lord Lester of Herne !fill, the Liberal Democrat peer.

I will not repeat some of the terms that were used to me to describe the eminent QC, an enormously energetic human rights barrister and supporter of Charter 88. Between him and his peers, suffice it to say, it's non-speakers. The occasion of Lester's Batemanesque clanger was a confidential submission to the Lords' own sleaze-bust- ing committee, chaired by Lord Griffiths. You will remember that Lord Lester said that a client of his (presumably Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed) had boasted that he had four peers on his payroll. When chal- lenged by Lord Cranborne, the Lord Privy Seal, and accused of 'blackguarding' the House, poor Lord Lester was unable to substantiate his charge without breaching client confidentiality.

Now the Upper House has long had the potential to be a gravy train. Classically, the lords spiritual and temporal arrive from their country seats on first-class rail tickets; or so they submit. One newly ennobled peer said to the official explaining the sys- tem, 'It's all right. I'll only be coming from Chelsea.' Oh no you won't, sir,' said the winking flunkey. The next slop is to claim their £32 day subsistence, followed by their £31 secretarial assistance. Then they have a smoke and read the Sun, then a little fold- ing of the hands in sleep during Question Time, and then, perhaps, ease off to White's while the womenfolk go shopping, followed by overnight subsistence of £71.50.

Their lordships would protest that com- pared to gravy trains around the world, this one runs on Bisto. Even throwing in the entitlement to second-class air fares, the total bill for about 1,211 peers of the realm is only a piffling 6.1 million. Contrast the European parliament, they say, where the expenses alone total £34 million for the 567 MEPs, including an astonishing £6,000 per month for a 'research assistant', and where all travel, even by aeroplane, is paid at 60p per mile.

I wonder, though, whether Brussels will long remain in a different league. It must be said that some of the peers are catching up fast. Last year 94 peers claimed more than £19,000 in expenses, and au unprece- dented 41 peers took 21,000 or more. Per- haps we should blame Lloyd's, the fallen property market and whatever else is caus- ing the Earls to tighten their belts, but Lord Lester appears to be right in his central assertion: they do take these little hono- raria from business.

At first I found it hard to believe that the gentle old sauropods were the targets of the likes of Ian Greer Associates. I consult- ed an eminent Westminster schmoozer. Yes, it was worth having a couple of tame peers on the strength, he said. Then I remembered the golden rule of lobbying. The real victim is not the Government, or the electorate. It is almost always the client company, credulous enough to believe its 'consultants' when they say that they are buying influence. What the consultants do not tell the tycoons is the Lords has not had the power to do anything much since 1911, and since 1949 it has only been able to delay bills by a year.

So, from the peers' point of view, what possible harm in lightening the wallets of businessmen if that means eliminating deathwatch beetle in the cupola? 'They all do it,' one peer muttered to me. A certain

'And now they've found a foreign crew that's. even more competitive.'

hereditary peer of recent creation, whom it is superfluous to name, is a devoted taker of the lobbyist's shilling, as well as signing on for exes on an astonishing 139 out of 142 days in session. Baroness Jay of Paddington, Labour front-bench spokesman for Health, makes no secret that she has received consideration for her help with the Sunday Trading campaign.

As it happens, Lord Lester was misun- derstood by his peers. He was not saying that members of the Upper House had bro- ken the rules. He was saying that the rules were too lax. Cross-examined by Lord Grif- fiths after he hurled his petard, Lord Lester said: 'I am not sure that at the moment lob- bying would be regarded as against a Peer's honour. I think it should he.' He pointed out that the only truly forbidden practice appeared to he taking cash to ask a specific oral question.

The Griffiths Committee is now consid- ering whether to set up a register of mem- bers' interests, as they have in the Com- mons. Lord McIntosh of Haringey, former Labour chairman of the GLC, is a keen backer, and so is Lord Lester: Lord Lester is a man for rules. He wants to impose a code on the Lords, just as he wants a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. It is hard, though, to see how this would work. What is Lord Hanson sup- posed to put in the Register of Members' Interests? At this stage in their distin- guished lives, peers should not need to reg- ister their interests. If they have to keep reminding the House of where they are coming from, they should surely not be sit- ting in the House of Lords.

It is an aesthetic experience to see the House of Lords in session; to see Baroness Scear leap to her feet; to behold the man with the stethoscope, either for hearing or for checking that his heart was still beating. The Lords is a place for the expression of simple, almost childlike thoughts, without the veneer of the professional politicians. The sun is bigger at sunset, though less intense. One feels a prickle of pride looking over the rail at the red leather benches, in the British irony and wisdom that sustains the organisation. It seems incredible that we should consider wrecking this institu- tion, and simultaneously giving more power to the European parliament. It would be sad if the Lords, by their actions, gave suc- cour to those who wish to reform them.