The house of lords attendance payment has to go | thearticle

Last week, after much delay and speculation, came the announcement of 36 new peerages. As is usual with the release of such lists, it prompted reaction about patronage and the case for

constitutional reform. Yet in other respects, these latest additions to the upper house were rather eye-catching. It is probably the most contentious since the “Lavender List”, the Prime

Minister’s Resignation Honours of Harold Wilson, in 1976. That included honours for assorted buccaneering businessmen, such as James Goldsmith, who were not noted as Labour Party supporters.

Last week’s honours included some choices that were surprising, coming from a Conservative Prime Minister. There was certainly an anti-establishment feel to it, though the former

Chancellors Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond were both included. The newspaper proprietor Evgeny Lebedev is now a lord. He is the son of a KGB agent. Simply being a rich Russian means he is

regarded with suspicion, though the extent to which he is an ally of Vladimir Putin is disputed. Then there was a peerage for Claire Fox, a champion of free speech whose political journey

has taken her from the Revolutionary Communist Party to the Brexit Party. I spotted some double standards in some of the complaints about her peerage, given the support the RCP gave to the

IRA. Backing for terrorist causes is anathema to those of us who favour freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But for revolutionary communists, it is par for the course. Those who objected

would not do so for squeamish concerns about murdering women and children but purely about tactical considerations. If you adhere to a totalitarian creed that justifies mass murder how

could it be otherwise? Fox’s chief tormentor is David Aaronovitch, a journalist on the _Times_. He makes the point that, while Fox has changed her views and no longer supports terrorism, she

has not really apologised or repudiated the RCP. It’s a fair point — but not one that Aaronovitch is best placed to make. He was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. They were

cheerleaders for the Soviet Union, though in the 1970s the Soviets supplied arms and training for the IRA. Aaronovitch is no longer a Communist, but has he apologised? I found his memoir

_Party Animals: My Family and Other Communists_ fascinating reading. There was plenty of humour and nostalgia — but no real sense of shame. Some of Tony Blair’s senior Ministers were former

Communist Party members: Jack Straw, John Reid, Peter Mandelson. Have any of them expressed serious genuine remorse? Ed Miliband’s father Ralph Miliband left the Labour Party in the 1960s to

become a sort of independent Communist. You can’t blame Ed for that. But Ed never gave any indication that he regarded his father’s views as pernicious. Nor was there any remorse shown by

that apologist for Stalinism Eric Hobsbawm, whom Ed called as a “lovely man.” Then we come on to Jeremy Corbyn whose allegiance to Irish republicanism is already well documented. In any

event, despite Fox’s dubious past, I predict she will improve the rigour and standard of debate in the House of Lords. She will ask difficult questions. She will challenge bad law from being

passed, when others might find it more expedient to remain quiet. Thus however dubious her past might be her contribution will be useful. Her view that the House of Lords should be

abolished just adds a bit of spice. A peerage for Jo Johnson, the Prime Minister’s brother has prompted automatic indignation. But Jo was the Universities Minister, a Transport Minister, a

Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit, an MP for nine years. It would not be unusual for such a person to be given a peerage. Might it not be fair to say that his participation might be

likely to enhance the Parliamentary process? If so, it would seem perverse to exclude him from the upper house due to an accident of birth. I was pleased to see that “non-affiliated

peerages” go to the former Labour MPs Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock. That should shake things up a bit. Edward Lister, Daniel Moylan, Charles Moore,

Ruth Davidson and Dame Louise Casey should all be well worth listening to. That still leaves a valid objection regarding numbers. Lord Fowler, the Lord Speaker, says the Prime Minister “has

got to stop these kinds of mass appointments”. He adds “we don’t need a House of Lords of 830” and “what you are doing is encouraging some in the House of Lords who are quite frankly

passengers and don’t make much effort in any event.” Members of the House of Lords are paid £323 for a daily attendance allowance. It is free of income tax. All they need to do is “clock

in”. Research by the Electoral Reform Society has found that the cost comes to £19 million a year, when travel expenses are included. Thirty-three “inactive peers” — those who did not utter

a word in committee or the chamber and did not even submit a single written question — picked up £462,510. During the current coronavirus crisis the rules have been different. They can earn

£162 a day if they log on, but only if they “actively participate”. As Fowler knows full well, as a former cabinet minister, it is all very well saying it has “got to stop”, but Prime

Ministers find this power to dispense favours very useful. During the Coalition Government, an awful lot of peerages were dished out to Lib Dem supporters as a harmless way to keep them

(relatively) happy. During the New Labour years, it was a means of rewarding donors and of enticing retirements among Labour MPs to make way for favoured young advisors to enter the Commons.

Given that the money is as much part of the reward as well as the title, perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a change in arrangements. But the best reform would be to scrap the payments —

or at least to tax them or cut then back to a more reasonable level. Those who still felt strongly would take part. Others who felt less inspired would have greater reason to withdraw from

proceedings and maintain a dignified silence.