I know it's Tuesday but for various reasons I've not managed to post this before now.
In the Sunday Times this week it was announced that the following a recent scandal in which four peers allowed themselves to be entrapped by journalists, the Government intends a modest reform of the House of Lords. It's promised to tighten up on declaration of outside interests, 'political consultancy' and make it harder for peers to accept money in return for parliamentary favours. It also intends to get rid of non-domiciled peers on the grounds that they can earn substantial incomes whilst largely avoiding tax. So far so good.
However there is one proposal in the legislation which should cause alarm amongst right thinking and fair minded people who cherish those liberties which happen to make Britain a great place. It is a proposal, which will have retrospective effect, to remove membership of the House from any member who serves - or has served - a prison sentence. This strikes at the heart of the acknowledged principle that a judicially imposed sentence is a sufficient punishment for a crime once an individual has been found guilty in a court of law. Jeffrey Archer - or rather Lord Archer of Weston Super Mare as he's more properly known- who has served a prison sentence for perjury will find himself excluded from the House of Lords if this proposal becomes law, as will Lord Black who is currently serving a sentence abroad. I'm not a great fan of Jeffrey Archer, other than as a cracking good author, or Lord Black for that matter. However I wouldn't wish to see either of them excluded from the House of Lords on the grounds that they've been to prison. In both cases the prison sentence was a judicially imposed punishment and should be considered sufficient for the crime. To punish a man further upon release by stripping him of some no doubt well earnt honour is a step too far and one which undermines the sufficiency of judicial punishment. It is a proposal which sane, fair minded, right thinking people can only condemn.
In the Sunday Times this week it was announced that the following a recent scandal in which four peers allowed themselves to be entrapped by journalists, the Government intends a modest reform of the House of Lords. It's promised to tighten up on declaration of outside interests, 'political consultancy' and make it harder for peers to accept money in return for parliamentary favours. It also intends to get rid of non-domiciled peers on the grounds that they can earn substantial incomes whilst largely avoiding tax. So far so good.
However there is one proposal in the legislation which should cause alarm amongst right thinking and fair minded people who cherish those liberties which happen to make Britain a great place. It is a proposal, which will have retrospective effect, to remove membership of the House from any member who serves - or has served - a prison sentence. This strikes at the heart of the acknowledged principle that a judicially imposed sentence is a sufficient punishment for a crime once an individual has been found guilty in a court of law. Jeffrey Archer - or rather Lord Archer of Weston Super Mare as he's more properly known- who has served a prison sentence for perjury will find himself excluded from the House of Lords if this proposal becomes law, as will Lord Black who is currently serving a sentence abroad. I'm not a great fan of Jeffrey Archer, other than as a cracking good author, or Lord Black for that matter. However I wouldn't wish to see either of them excluded from the House of Lords on the grounds that they've been to prison. In both cases the prison sentence was a judicially imposed punishment and should be considered sufficient for the crime. To punish a man further upon release by stripping him of some no doubt well earnt honour is a step too far and one which undermines the sufficiency of judicial punishment. It is a proposal which sane, fair minded, right thinking people can only condemn.