In defence of the Lords

There is a great feature by Lord Lipsey (ex-editor of the Economist) in the Times T2 section in response to the Sunday Times’ accusatory piece about how money can buy favours in the nation’s second chamber.

“My, what exotic lives we peers of the realm live! Clad in our ermine robes, amid our coats of arms and liveried flunkies, we have only to sit on our well-upholstered behinds for hordes of suitors to descend, offering us vast riches for the boon of our favours.

That, at any rate, was the impression gleaned from The Sunday Times’s “Erminegate” tale this week. Unfortunately, returning to the House after the Sabbath, Monday seemed rather less glamorous and less scandalous. Not only is no one wearing ermine (it is reserved for rare ceremonies) but the riches are fools’ gold, offered by journalists whose cheques would bounce. Though it is a huge privilege to be a member of the Lords, reality, it has to be said, falls far short of a thrill a minute.

When I have finished this article, I shall go over to the chamber for Day 5 of the committee stage of the Banking Bill. I have in my hand the programme for the delights ahead. For example, the second amendment of the day is No 159 in the name of the (formidable) Baroness Noakes, which in Clause 167 (page 88, line 32) would insert: “arrangements for institutions that have permission under Part 4 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry out the regulated activity of accepting deposits (within the meaning of section 22 of that Act, taken with Schedule 2 and by order under section 22) but are not incorporated in, or formed under the law of, any part of the United Kingdom.”

I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness explain her purport; to the contributions of a number of similarly expert fellow peers expounding on or arguing against the amendment; to the minister’s doubtless polite and judicious reply saying why he embraces, rejects or wants to think a bit more about it, and then to the likely outcome: that the amendment is (by leave of the House) withdrawn. We can then get on with the 99 further amendments tabled for today, the last of which runs to six pages.

Unlike in the Commons, where large chunks of Bills are passed without benefit of detailed debate, the Lords grinds exceedingly fine. By common consent, the legislation that emerges is a good bit less bad as a result.

I should be lying, however, if I gave the impression that days and nights at the House are all about debating the small print of legislation. I shan’t be doing much of that tomorrow, for example, when I arrive at the House after lunch for what is probably a typical peer’s busy day.

At 2pm I have a meeting with the head of a big bookmaking firm to exchange views; that is part of my (unpaid) job as vice-chair of the All-Party Betting and Gaming Group. Like most all-party committees, which are made up of representatives from both Houses of Parliament, the majority will be peers. This is no criticism of MPs, who work hard but understandably need to give priority to their constituency work. There are hundreds of all-party committees at Westminster, and they give unique opportunities for those outside Parliament with strong feelings on particular subjects to inject them into the body politic. Without them, and the peers who mainly man them, Parliament would be a poorer place.

At 3pm I have a meeting with an expert about the financial services industry and how well it serves consumers. This is appropriate, as I recently resigned as chair of the Financial Services Consumers’ Panel and want to explore how best to make use of that bruising experience to help consumers. At 4pm the BBC all-party committee meets Mark Thompson, the Director-General. I do not expect to be the only member wishing to leave him in no doubt about the strength of parliamentary feeling about Jonathan Ross, or about the corporation’s craven surrender to the Zionist lobby by banning the Gaza emergency appeal. At 5pm, by a neat symmetry, the ITV group meets. At 6pm I put my gambling hat back on to have a private meeting with Baroness Neuberger, who chairs the Gambling Commission’s new strategy board on risks from gambling. Then it’s ten minutes at the Labour peers’ party - told you it was all fun and games in the Lords! - before a seminar on equity release.

I am not complaining: far from it. These are all interesting subjects - at least, they are if (like me) you are addicted to public policy. We peers get a unique opportunity to talk to the most expert and eminent people about them - and just occasionally, as a result, we are able to shift government policy a smidgin, for the public good.Though no peer is paid, we get reasonably generous expenses and a gratifying dose of social kudos. It is a life that most of us love; but most of us would love it, too, if the wider public was more often given a sense of what we are really up to, rather than the caricature that characterises most of the coverage we get.”