According to the 'Peeress' on TV this morning, if they were to be found guilty, their punishment would be to be 'named & shamed' in the House! It seems they cannot be thrown out or anything drastic like that......
If proved, could this be another example of `greed` often referred to in these forums?
Surely it is time not simply to name and shame such people but to bring them before the Law and punish them for what they truly are.
I long for the days when the Sunday papers were full of the exploits of politicians of other countries being found to have been the subjects of such bribery, whilst our own were above reproach - or were they?
In the first instance there has been no investigation into these allegations, so let's not race ahead with the naming and shaming.
Secondly, there's nothing to stop a member of the House of Lords acting as a consultant to a commercial organisation with regard to advising on how legislation might affect a business. The Lords are not salaried, and may quite legally accept such fees.
If it is proven that a member of the house accepted, or agreed to accept a sum of money in return for influencing the legislative process then it's a very serious matter - corruption is the word to use then.
Meanwhile I suggest we wait for some more detailed information to emerge before gathering into a lynch mob.
The Lords might not be salaried, but do they not obtain 'appearance' money and other allowances-perks.
Our local councillor's are also constantly making statements about not being paid or on a salary, and no doubt this is the same elsewhere. Yet in the same breath, they seem to forget that (in my area) they have fixed allowances of £10.000 plus, the leader of the council £53.000 and perks (going up in April). I believe in some London Borough's the 'allowances are in excess of the figures mentioned. In the old days, it was called 'out of pocket expenses'.