Lords face lobby rules shake-up

By Gillian Hargreaves Political correspondent, BBC News

It has been a long week in the House of Lords, during which the spotlight has been turned on every nook and cranny of peers' business.

The Lords authorities have promised a "rigorous" inquiry

The scrutiny has been prompted by "cash-for-influence" allegations against four Labour peers. They deny any wrongdoing but Gordon Brown has promised emergency sanctions" if claims they offered to help make amendments to legislation for cash fees are proved.

The scandal has sent an electric shock through Westminster and prompted an extended bout of journalistic digging and probing the like of which the sedate corridors of the Upper House have never seen before.

We have learned of consultancies and expertise, law making and influence. And now it looks like the rules regarding what peers can and cannot do is to change.

But first the numbers.

A total of 743 men and women are eligible to sit in House of Lords.

Of those, 145 work as paid consultants.

The industries they advise run from banking to fast food manufacturers, nuclear power to health companies.

The House of Lords Code of Conduct on such work seems to be crystal clear.

Directorships

Members of the House "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence".

And members of the House "must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit (the 'no paid advocacy' rule)".

But here is the rub: Many lords interpret this as applying to Parliamentary consultancy roles.

At the moment Peers cannot be thrown out of the Upper chamber for wrongdoing

Rather than other agreements such as remunerated directorships or other non-Parliamentary consultancies.

So look at it like this - Lord X worked as a hospital doctor for twenty years. He then becomes a peer and takes a consultancy with a private medical company.

He registers that interest as a "non-Parliamentary" interest because of his knowledge gained outside of the House.

He may have access to government ministers and he may have an in-depth knowledge of pieces of health legislation coming up in the House of Lords, but he can be paid by this company and advise them as long as he does not work as a paid advocate for them, by using his position in the House.

Clear remit

Of course many people might think by the very fact of being House of Lords and talking to ministers and debating legislation puts Lord X in a unique position to act as an adviser to a company.

But that is how the rules, which are supposed to be clear, can be open to interpretation.

The peers have denied any wrongdoing

It is also worth noting that a peer registers a consultancy or directorship as "Parliamentary " or "non-Parliamentary" he or she must declare an interest when they speak on matters relating to that company, but they can still vote on legislation which may affect the business.

There is an overwhelming sense now in both the House of Lords and House of Commons that something must be done.

The leader of the house Baroness Royall has called for changes to the rules.

At the moment the are two enquiries going on in the House of Lords.

The sub committee of the House of Lords Privileges Committee will listen to evidence from both sides about the Sunday Times undercover investigation.

The committee's remit is clear.

Written censure

It "hears complaints of prima facie breach of privilege, takes evidence, and reports its recommendations to the Lords, where they are debated before the House decides whether or not to accept them."

The second investigation by the Privileges Committee proper will look at what changes might need to be made to the rules.

And they might well look at the following:

First: Controls on outside consultancies could be tightened to bar any paid work to do with Parliament, not just paid advocacy or promotion of an issue. This would ensure that outside interests are at arm's length.

Second: There might be a review of the untaxed allowance of