[A-List] UK state: constitutional deform

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

More on the parody that is the "mother of all parliaments". Tony wants a
House of Lords that is more reflective of the diversity of the population at
large. In which case, what is wrong with having Jeffrey Archer sitting
there, when such a sizeable and ever-growing proportion of the British
population, thanks to Michael Howard, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, are
convicted felons? Meanwhile, anyone who has ever read Jeffrey Archer's
scribblings will know that, by his own stated criterion, he should still be
in the clink.

-----

Archer to be stripped of his peerage

CATHERINE MacLEOD Political Editor
The Herald, September 19 2003

JEFFREY Archer will be stripped of his peerage and will not be allowed to
sit in the House of Lords if the government succeeds in changing the
membership rules of the upper House in line with the Commons.

Yesterday Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the lord chancellor, signalled the fate
of the disgraced politician, as he unveiled the government's long awaited
proposals for the second stage of Lords reform.

He made no reference to Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare but few doubted the
disgraced peer was firmly in his sights.

Lord Thoroton did add that disqualified peers would be free to seek
re-election, just as former MPs can seek re-election, by applying to the
appointments commission or their party.

Lord Archer, the flamboyant author and former Tory politician, was recently
released from jail after spending two years of a four-year prison sentence
for perjury. He is expected to mount a charm offensive to protect his title,
but the lord chancellor appeared to be in no mood to compromise.

Even as Lord Thoroton was on his feet, Lord Archer had a speaking engagement
in Oxford, voicing his thoughts on prison reform.

At the conference organised by the Howard League for Penal Reform, Lord
Archer proposed that illiterate inmates should be denied parole unless they
learned to read and write.

He ignored questions about his own future.

Arriving at the Randolph Hotel in Oxford with his son, William, the Tory
peer stared silently ahead as he was surrounded by reporters and camera
crews.

Taking questions at the end of his speech, he ignored a reporter who asked
for his response to the news that his "own rehabilitation would not include
being able to forge a career in the House of Lords".

And he again refused to speak to the media as he left the hotel's conference
room, before being whisked away to his waiting BMW through a back door.

During the heated Lords debate on constitutional reform, Lord Thoroton said:
"Parliament is a privilege, not a possession. We therefore propose that in
the future, such peers will forfeit their membership of the House exactly as
they would if they were MPs. In addition, they will be deprived of their
peerage."

In a most unusual departure from precedent, the lord chancellor added: "The
provision will have retrospective effect." This vital element of the reform
would almost certainly capture Lord Archer's conviction in 2001.

In the consultation paper published to underpin the announcement, the
government proposed that any member of the Lords sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding 12 months would lose his or her seat and title.

George Foulkes, the Labour MP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and a
former Scottish Office minister, welcomed the proposed reform.

He said: "This is really good news. MPs have always been debarred from
sitting in the Commons if they have been convicted of certain offences.

"It has always been a ridiculous anomaly that peers who have been in prison
should have been able to go back into the Lords to take part in legislation
and vote on issues that affect the British people."

Roger Gale, the Tory MP for Thanet North, said: "It is entirely proper that
the Lords should be the same as the Commons in this respect.

"I am not really in favour of retrospective legislation because that could
appear to be vindictive.

"But the principle that the Lords should be treated the same as the Commons
is entirely right."

Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester, added: "It is entirely
right and proper that the sanctions should be the same in both Houses of
parliament.

"A member of the elected chamber would have been banished months ago if he
had behaved in the way that Archer has."

The appointments commission will be accountable to parliament rather than
ministers.

 It will control all appointments to the Lords with the exception of up to
five direct ministerial appointments per parliament, reserved for the prime
minister, and the archbishops and bishops.

 The government's 2001 white paper proposed a commission of eight members,
four nominated and recommended by the parties and cross benchers, and three
members and the chairman to be recruited through an open selection process.

 The government has said it will hold discussions with opposition parties to
decide how they might best be involved in the appointments process.

 The government says it wants a house "better reflecting" the diverse
make-up of the United Kingdom.