Labour peer Swraj Paul has called for fundamental reform of the procedures to investigate allegations against members of the House of Lords to ensure “the highest standards of fairness and probity”.
Speaking in the House during the debate on broader constitutional reforms, Lord Paul of Marylebone said while “issues such as the composition of this noble House have become our primary focus” he believed it was “as important to consider reform and revision of the processes, the procedures and the operating functions that underlie the Constitutional structure and make it work”.
“These are the nuts and bolts that give the structure its strength and assure its legitimacy,” he added.
Underlining the need for a fairer, clearer and more transparent system, the India-born industrialist said: “In the penumbra of larger reform, we now have an excellent opportunity to make sure that these operating procedures, the ways in which this House regulates itself, will conform to the highest standards of fairness and probity.”
In this context, he suggested four principles that, he said, must inform “our working processes”.
“Regretfully, they have, I believe, not been fully adhered to in the past and this, as your Lordships are aware, has been the source of considerable controversy,” he said in an indirect reference to the way he was treated in the expenses' claims row. He was briefly suspended from the House over allegations that he had wrongly claimed certain expenses. He had then likened the conduct of the inquiry panel to that of a “kangaroo court”.
Unveiling the four principles, Lord Paul said the first was “equality” in the way the rules were applied.
“If there are any investigations or allegations regarding members of this House, all those concerned must be treated equally — selective application of rules against some and exculpation of others is discriminatory. When it is known that many have done what only a few are castigated for, it can only be a gross transgression of British Justice,” he said.
Secondly, rules should not be applied retrospectively.
Pointing out that as far as he knew “retrospective violations have no status and are not recognised in the Courts of Law”, Lord Paul said: “Why, then, should they be the basis of punishment for members of this House?”
He also suggested a review of how committees examining allegations against members were composed.
The third principle, he said, related to transparency.
“Whenever this House or its committees conduct investigations or examine evidence, it is essential that all relevant documents be made available. Scrupulous care should be taken that nothing is omitted or withheld,” he said.
Lord Paul said it was also essential that the member being investigated should be allowed legal representation, “especially if he or she is to be subject to unrestrained cross-examination by legal luminaries”.
“Simply summoning members and denying them the right to legal representation is something that our justice system would not tolerate. Neither should we,” he said.
Alluding to his own case, Lord Paul said: “Your Lordships will not be surprised at my interest in these matters. Experience, after all, is the parent of insight. But… my primary concern is that we govern ourselves with the same degree of propriety that we expect from the civil institutions of government. Reform will really be reform only when it reaches all levels. Widening the scope and application of reforms of this House allows us an opportunity to do this — an opportunity it would be unwise to neglect.”
