Lords reform in an age of scandal - not as easy as it looks...

The publication of allegations of wrongdoing against four Labour Peers by the Sunday Times has dealt another blow to the current arrangements in the House of Lords. Lord Taylor of Blackburn, in particular, has been particularly foolish, and the recording of parts of the conversation he had with the undercover journalists appears to be pretty damning.

Much attention has been drawn to the current lack of effective sanction against those who break the rules, and there have been many who have been quick to condemn the allowances system that applies at present. On first glance, it looks pretty generous. A daily attendance allowance, supplemented by additional payments for those who reside outside London, amounts to approximately £330 per day. There are additional allowances for secretarial support, as well as reimbursement of travel costs.

And there's the rub. To get paid, you have to turn up. Given the age profile of the Lords, that's less easy than it sounds, and it also needs to be borne in mind that the House only sits for about 160 days each year, less if there is a General Election. Ill health means that you lose your income and, for those whose primary source of income is their activity in the Lords, an accident or surgery can be very expensive indeed.

Whilst some Peers are assiduous in their attendance, holding down frontbench roles, serving on Select Committees, or on one of the various committees that manage business in the Lords, there are many who turn up infrequently, if at all. I notice that journalists have referred to Jeffrey Archer (Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare) as a convicted criminal who still sits in the Lords, yet he has not attended for some time. Some of the Peers are in their nineties, and given that Life Peers cannot renounce their peerages, they are 'on the books' until death.

So, what do you do to reform the Lords, if the Government is so unwilling to do anything to change the way people get there? Salaries for Peers might be attractive to some, but what level of remuneration is appropriate? How do you link it to attendance? Indeed, what can one expect in return?

There are those who will suggest that Peers be barred from earning from sources other than the Lords. Frankly, this is a non-runner. Too many Peers have established income from their activities established long before they were elevated to the Lords. Captains of industry, bankers, local councillors, lawyers and even the bishops are often there because of those activities. Some of them attend less frequently than they might for the very reason that it permits them to engage in those other activities. And, of course, if they don't turn up at the Lords, they don't get paid.

Indeed, if you have a job or profession that pays £70,000 per year or more, you would be guaranteed to be worse off if you then accepted a peerage. If you want the best and the brightest to contribute to public life by means of scrutiny of legislation, or by amending poor legislation, then either you provide them with an incentive, or you leave them with the scope to obtain supplementary income.

A more limited reform would be to ban Peers from being lobbyists or Parliamentary advisors. Ironically, this is pretty much banned already, and Peers are expected to declare their interest if they speak or raise questions. This convention could be toughened up though, with meaningful sanctions for those who breach it. The inability of the Lords to punish miscreants is a serious failing, and the options of suspension, with its financial implications, or outright expulsion should be considered.

Given that most Peers will be perfectly happy to see the book thrown at any Peer found guilty of taking cash for amendments, such legislation would almost certainly be welcomed.

We must be careful not to over-react. If we place too many restrictions on Peers, we risk restricting new appointments to those with sufficient financial resource to take the hit of reduced income, the retired and, ironically, the poor. As an example, an Executive Officer in the Civil Service would probably be better off as a Peer if they attended half of the sitting days. On the other hand, if we want the best and the brightest, and there really are some astonishingly knowledgable people in the Lords, we need to provide some flexibility.

Of course, the best solution is an elected second chamber, but does anyone see that sort of reform coming in the next ten years?...