After I had submitted evidence to the House of Lords “Constitution Committee” chaired by Baroness Jay, I found that none of the English groups that had given evidence are to be called to give oral evidence.
It is no surprise that a Committee chaired by the daughter of Jim Callaghan would be biased and anti-English but that is no reason not to protest!
So I complained to the House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards. Here is the correspondence.
What do you think?
My initial letter to House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards dated 20th March 2014
Dear Commissioner for Standards
Re: Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee
The English Democrats and two other English groups (the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament) put in submissions to the “Scottish Independence: Constitutional: Implication for the rest of the UK” Inquiry by the House of Lords “Constitution Committee”.
None of the English submissions were called in for oral submissions, which I find suspicious as to the Committee’s agenda and whether or not it has behaved in an open, transparent and proper manner, both under the Code of Conduct and also under the Equalities Act 2010.
The members of the Committee are as follows:-
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Chair) – Labour
Lord Crickhowell – Conservative
Lord Cullen of Whitekirk – Crossbench
Baroness Falkner of Margravine – Liberal Democrat
Lord Goldsmith – Labour
Lord Hart of Chilton – Labour
Lord Irvine of Lairg – Labour
Lord Lang of Monkton – Conservative
Lord Lester of Herne Hill – Liberal Democrat
Lord Lexden – Conservative
Lord Powell of Bayswater – Crossbench
Baroness Wheatcroft – Conservative
I note from their entries in the House of Lord’s website, that none of them appear to have either made a registration or a declaration of interest relevant to this inquiry. It is obvious that, in such an inquiry, their national identity is a relevant interest in the context of the matter under discussion, to use the words of paragraph 82 of the Code of Conduct.
I submit that it is also in a category of “Interest” which although possibly non-financial (depending where their property is) but, in any event, is an “Interest” that ought to be Registered and/or Declared.
I consider that the members (apropos paragraph 7) should have conducted this Inquiry based on considerations of public interest and the public interest does of course include compliance with the Equality Act.
Regarding section 9) c) the conduct of the Committee does not meet the standard of objectivity in carrying out public business, nor do the responses that I have received from the Committee’s Clerk (copies of this correspondence I enclose), comply with the section 9) e) requirement of openness about the decisions that they took – in this case to exclude all English representation from the discussion.
Considering that the English represent some 90% of the population of the UK and over 60% (over 32 million) of them have declared themselves to be of ‘English Only’ national identity in the 2011 Census results, it is obvious that no inquiry into the constitutional implications for the rest of the UK could be properly conducted without English opinion being fully taken into account.
I submit that failure to register and/or declare their national identity is a breach of 10) a) and that as a reasonable member of the public I consider that under paragraph 11 national identity interests in this question would be thought by any reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which the members of this Committee have discharged their parliamentary duties in the case of the Committee, in respect of the particular matter under discussion.
As the Clerk has declined to answer my questions, I am unable to focus this complaint on the individual members of the Committee who have acted to the detriment of a proper discussion on this issue. I would therefore ask you to enquire into the answers to my Equality Act questions and also to determine whether there has been a breach or breaches of the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct in respect of each and every Committee member.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook
Enc.
Letter dated 26th March 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Dear Mr Tilbrook
I am writing in response to your letter of complaint dated 20th March 2014 (your ref RT/37).
Your letter is headed “Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee”. My remit is limited to investigating complaints against members of the House of Lords, not the staff of the House. This reply therefore addresses your letter only as it applies to the members of the Constitution Committee.
I have carefully considered the points you make and my preliminary assessment is that your complaint does not meet the criteria set out in the House of Lords Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct.
The first element of your complaint appears to be that the English Democrats, the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament were not invited to give oral evidence to the Constitution Committee. The Code of Conduct relates to members of the House of Lords individually, and not to a select committee’s collective decisions. There is no provision in the Code about committees inviting oral or written evidence; this element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit and does not relate to an alleged breach of the Code.
The second element of your complaint seems to be that the members of the Constitution Committee have not registered or declared their national identity as an interest relevant to the Constitution Committee’s inquiry into “Scottish independence: constitutional implications for the rest of the UK”. Members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement in the Code for members to register on the Register of Lord’s Interests their national identity. Nor is there a requirement in wider British law for individuals to declare a national identity. I considering whether members of the committee should declare their national identity I must assess whether that would be considered by a reasonable member of the public as relevant to the subject-matter of the committee’s inquiry. In this case the inquiry is into certain constitutional implications for the rest of the UK of any “yes” vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The committee’s call for evidence states that the inquiry is covering the conduct of potential negotiations; the position of assets and liabilities, and shared services of the UK; and implications of the UK Parliament. The call for evidence states that the committee’s inquiry is focussed. At no point does it indicate that the committee is exploring questions of national identity or citizenship matters. I therefore conclude that this element of the complaint does not demonstrate a prima facie breach of the Code.
The third element of your complaint appears to be that members of the committee have not complied with the Equality Act 2010. My remit is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. That element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit.
In the light of the above I do not intend to investigate your complaint. However, if you can provide further evidence of a specific breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct, I am prepared to examine that material.
Yours sincerely
Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Commissioner for Standards
My letter to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN, Commissioner of Standards dated the 31st March 2014
Dear Mr Kernaghan
Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee
Thank you for your letter of the 26th March and for responding so promptly.
As you have dealt with our complaint in what you have labelled as three “elements” and indicated that you think that the first and third elements are outside your jurisdiction, I will concentrate on the second element.
I must admit I am somewhat surprised with your response to the second element, since it seems to me absolutely obvious that the national identity of individuals is probably the most relevant interest that they could have in an Inquiry of the nature that the Constitutional Committee is inquiring into.
There may not be any specific requirement in the Code for Members to register their national identity. My point is however that in inquiring into Scottish Independence: Constitutional Implications for the Rest of the UK, it is obvious that any reasonable member of the public would regard the individual Committee Member’s national identity as being of utmost relevance to the subject matter of the Committee’s inquiry.
This is especially so when it is realised that there is no constitutional validity to the idea of the “rest of the UK” being an automatically continuing constitutional entity if Scotland become Independent, as was made plain in both my submission and in that of the only other submission made by a practising lawyer dealing with this concept, Judge Ian Burns Campbell. I enclose a copy of my submission.
In the event that Members of the Committee seek to use their position to give substance to a constitutionally bogus idea such as “rest of the UK”, it would be of great interest to know their national identity.
It would also be of some interest to know whether the Committee adequately reflects the proportion of national identity across the current UK. From what I can see of the background of the Committee Members it would appear there are relatively few who would have any interest in or desire to speak for England – because of their national identity!
At a time when the 2011 Census results show that over 60% of the population of England, that is over 32 million people, regard themselves as having English Only national identity it would certainly be of considerable relevance to know whether there are in fact any Members of the House of Lords Constitutional Committee that have English Only national identity. At the very least, in my respectful submission, what Members should have done and should now be required to do is to make a Declaration of Interest so far as this inquiry is concerned, and, indeed, any other Inquiries that relate to devolution or to the independence of any of the constituent nations of the UK State.
In light of the above I do hope that you will take the necessary action to require the Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee to make a Declaration of Interest of their respective national identities.
Whilst writing I would remind you that National Identity under the Equality Act is a different concept to racial group or ethnicity. It is the concept of which national group an individual self-identifies with. It is that very element of self-identity which means that any reasonable member of the public would want to know the National Identity of each Committee Member in order to understand what the Committee Member’s views are likely to be on any relevant national question as the UK moves towards this dissolution.
Yours sincerely
R C W Tilbrook
Enc.
Letter dated 9th April 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Thank you for your letter dated 31 March 2014.
I have carefully considered the points you raise but have decided to screen out your complaint.
The Guide to the Code of Conduct provides guidance on non-financial interests in some detail. Paragraph 90 lists non-financial interests that are not normally registered but which it may be necessary to declare in certain circumstances. Amongst these are “membership of Churches or other religious bodies or organisations”. There is no mention of “national identity”. As I have previously advised you, members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement for committees of the House to consider “national identity” when calling witnesses. As mentioned in my previous letter, “national identity” is not covered in the call for evidence for the Constitution Committee’s inquiry. Thus I do not consider that any member of that committee has breached the Code of Conduct by not declaring their national identity.
Yours sincerely
Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Commissioner for Standards
My letter dated 11th April 2014 to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN
Dear Mr Kernaghan
Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee
Thank you for your letter of the 9th April. With respect you have demonstrated the inadequacy both of your role and of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. For it not to be an admissible complaint that members of the committee have failed to declare their national identity when conducting an inquiry into an issue where national identity plays a key role is simply the stuff of a classic Whitehall farce!
You have nicely demonstrated the rottenness of the current system of crony appointments by the British Political Establishment to our Upper Legislative Chamber.
The sooner the British Unionist State is dissolved and England has a proper and fully democratically elected legislature the better!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook