MELTDOWNBLOG

THE PRICE OF A PEERAGE IS GOING UP

In days gone by the elevation of someone who had performed some great service to the realm was in the gift of a King or Queen. The deed whatever it was so well known that everyone knew the reason for the elevation and why the recipient should from that day forth be called “Sir”. The trail of “Slain dragons”, “Wrongs righted”, “Deeds of great valour” and courage beyond that of any ordinary man was beyond question.
If only it was like that now.

Toward the close of 2005 the “Story” of “Cash for peerages” began to feature in the media though at that point no one really knew just how far the suspected abuse of the award of honours/peerages had gripped this particular “Tool of the establishment” and in the final analysis that is exactly what a peerage is, a “Carrot” dangled before the rich and famous, the prominent and the wealthy to induce their support for a cause.

The actual award tends to arrive in much the same way as the “Sixpence left by the tooth fairy” or so many of the recipients would have the world believe but in addition to the epaulette of “Sir” the elevation also carries the right to sit in the House of Lords where such can and do vote in support or opposition of serious legislation en route from The Commons to the Sovereign for Royal Assent.
The House of Lords is often the “Thorn in the side” of government largely because the Lords is a body comprised of expert opinion upon the full gamete of our society.
Whatever the subject of a piece of legislation brought to the Lords there will be expertise available to dissect the intended legislation and return it to the Commons for amendment however the Commons do have a means to exclude the Lords from the process in the shape of a piece of legislation called “The Parliament Act”. Up to the first term of office of the present administration the Parliament Act had only been used on two occasions since it became law in the 1911 but until 1991 had only been invoked three times, since 1991 it has been used four times to force bills to Royal Assent without the Lords involvement.
It could be thought that the government of the day might not have sufficient support in the Lords to fulfil their manifesto obligations to the electorate in which case an increase in politically sympathetic Lords might be beneficial but on the four occasions that the Parliament Act has been used by this government three of the issues concerned were not manifesto items, which would seem to preclude political motives but the numbers game in the House of Lords is played from 10 Downing Street to ensure success of Legislation. The present balance of power in the Lords is subtly close at 221 Labour peers: 216 Conservative peers: 192 cross benchers including 79 Liberals. The outcome of any vote in the Lords is as carefully manages as it is in the commons but the mere suggestion that money “Buys grace and favour” in what is essentially the second chamber of government by votes that are bought and not elected attacks the impartiality of the second house to a point where corruption could and will be mentioned. Yet the skulduggery finds its origin not in the Lords but in the government of the House of Commons.

Where power, influence and money are in the equation there will almost certainly be allegations of corrupt/sharp practise and in order for a political party to become elected money is always required. Prior to the election of the first government of New Labour party fundraisers from all three major political parties were hard at work securing funding for the forthcoming election. The most successful were New Labour who it was said amassed an “Estimated” fourteen million pounds and were subsequently elected. The figure could only be estimated because many of the financial backers either did not want it generally known that they had contributed or they were advised by the party machine that a more anonymous way to donate was through the device of a “Loan” which at the time did not have to be acknowledged by the party publicly. There was also no requirement to declare such loans to the establishment of The House of Lords upon the elevation of a new lord. Most of the contributions to party funds by the larger donors were not readily available for scrutiny but it is now known that in certain cases where a donor had made a significant contribution it was likely that a “Favour” of some kind could befall the source of the benevolence.

The most striking case of this “Favour” was a peerage given to Paul Drayson who had previously “Donated” £100,000 to Labour party funds who then subsequently swelled the party coffers with a further “Donation” of £500,000, he was appointed to the Ministry of Defence as a Minister. [Not elected]

To say that it is only the present administration that has used the device of awarding a peerage for “Services rendered or cash raised for the cause” would be wrong because successive governments have employed the same tactic but not upon the scale that is now under investigation by Scotland Yard, the Commons privileges committee and their counterparts in the Lords.

Since the matter was raised by the former Independent MP for Tatton, Martin Bell
in an interview with the “Times Newspaper” it has become obvious that the Prime Ministers office were well aware that “Charges of cash for peerages” at best and downright “sleaze” at worst might be brought to bear. It was for such reasons that would be donors were advised that a loan to the party funds would be preferable to an open donation but a loan by its very essence is a commercial transaction involving a fixed term, a sum to be placed at the borrowers disposal and interest accrued. To call the transactions made by most of the donors to the present administration would be stretching a point past recognition. To date no repayments have been made, no effort has been made to recover the overdue amount and there has been no legal remedy sought though all of the creditors have just cause. The inescapable conclusion must be that these sums of money placed at the disposal of a political party were in fact donations and not loans but were called loans to avoid disclosure.

Most if not all of the “Creditors” have been rewarded for their benevolence and their myopic disregard of commercial law. The police and several committees of both Houses of Parliament have met with a veil of helpful silence upon the matter and so far have only made two arrests under an act of Parliament the1925 Honours [prevention of abuses] that bans the sale of peerages, for privilege, favour or gain and sets out a specific framework encompassing what form a loan or donation can take. The arrested party’s were Des Smith and bailed without charge but he was a former government advisor connected to the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust where Lord Levy is President and Lord Levy who was also bailed. Lord Levy is the fundraiser in chief of the Labour party and curiously the reason for the arrest stemmed from a loophole in an Act that became law in 2000 making a requirement to declare all donations above £5000 whilst commercial loans were exempt from the rules, foreign donations were banned The act was a progression from rules laid down by Tony Blair in 1997 when New Labour came to office, the rules were intended to eradicate “sleaze” from politics and public life. The suspicion is that Lord Levy [who is known as ”Sir cash” in some government circles] had exploited a loophole in the regulations to secure party funds.

Not long ago The Power Commission reported, “that every Labour party donor that had contributed £1,000,000 or more had received a knighthood or a peerage”.
Prospective peers are vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission for their propriety, by the Public Administration Committee for ethics but the final sanction rests now as it has for the past eighty years with the office of the Prime Minister.

The men who are said to have “Lent” £4.5 million between them to the Labour cause are Barry Townsley, Sir David Garrard, Dr.Chai Patel, and Sir Gulam Noon. So far 48 men have been questioned in connection with the enquiry, 13 of them under caution and no charges have yet been brought.

Current opinion in both Houses hold that a £250,000 but no one will say it publicly.
To date only one person has ever been convicted of an offence under the 1925 honours [Prevention of Abuses] Act and he was a spy by the name of Maundy Gregory
He was fined,……. thousands?……. Tens of thousands? No £50 and sentenced to six months in prison in 1933.

The nature of the offence is trivial by the comparison of the harm done to the confidence held in peers and politicians but maybe Martin Bell had a point when he said, “The sale and purchase of peerages has reached a level today not seen since the time of Lloyd George” It brings politics into disrepute and undermines the public’s trust in public life. He maintains that the system that creates peers now is more corrupt than it was when the Honours [Prevention of Abuses] Act became the law of the land in 1925.

JP.

Posted: September 27, 2006

Comment Here

Excellent Good Average Poor Bad

Comments

Email Address
(Optional)

[Last 100 Blogs] [Blog Search] [Contact Us] [FREE Site] [Home] [Writers] [Login]