Conduct Committee

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and her committee for all the work they did. My few remarks are based on the work I undertook in the City, where I was involved in the first introduction of statutory regulation to what had hitherto been an entirely self-regulatory system. Over 30 years, the self-regulatory system was driven out by statutory regulation, and there are some lessons and some portents of what may lie ahead for your Lordships’ House.

I want to make just two very short points. The first is—this was said by other noble Lords—that we found very early on that, as regards codes and guides, less is more. People in the City are busy making money; people in your Lordships’ House are busy holding the Government to account. They do not have the time that they should have to read codes if they are lengthy: therefore, the shorter, the better. So I express my unequivocal support to the noble Baroness for the reduction in code length and guide length that the noble Baroness and her committee have undertaken and for focusing them. But, of course, I have to say, gently, that it is still over 60 pages long.

I am afraid my second point is slightly less obliging. I have had an email exchange with the noble Baroness, so she is aware of what I am going to say. Nothing that I am saying is about her personally: she has an unenviable role, as many noble Lords have said, and she has carried it out with dignity and efficacy. Nor am I attacking the commissioner and his staff, or indeed the other members of the committee.

What I want to draw to the attention of your Lordships’ House is the direction of travel in the code we are discussing today. As I see it, the challenge is set out admirably clearly in the code in paragraphs 3 and 4, where it refers to

“upholding the Code’s twin objectives”—

I understand that—and states:

“The Code and Guide face two ways … The House is self-regulating, but it exists to serve the public”.


Immediately, one has to realise that anything facing two ways will inevitably have some tensions between the two functions. In the City, we found that maintaining a self-regulatory element within a statutory function was impossible. Statute squeezed out self-regulation. That is something that I think is slowly, imperceptibly happening in the regulatory system of your Lordships’ House.

Some Members of the House believe that that is desirable and inevitable—indeed, the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, takes us a further step down that road. But others may think that maintaining an element of self-regulation, of practitioner input, makes our disciplinary procedures more relevant and effective; and, further, that this is particularly true of a House of Parliament, a major part of whose role and work is undertaking the delicate task of balancing and reconciling conflicts of interest.

In 240 seconds, I cannot possibly hope to explain how one might reset the dial, but, if I had one sentence only, it would be that we may have forgotten the importance of the presumption of innocence—a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. The code, as the law, is the protector of the reputation of the House and has to be obeyed. The guide, as the protector of Members of your Lordships’ House, needs to carry with it that presumption of innocence. Without it, Members of your Lordships’ House end up with the worst of all worlds: a system in which the inevitably somewhat fuzzy nature of the guide is investigated and enforced as if it were on a statutory basis, which is not a helpful way to proceed.

Let me end as I began. I am not attacking anybody; I am drawing attention to the direction of travel, which I think has its downsides. If my noble friend Lord Hamilton were to decide to divide the House, I would be inclined to support him.