The chair of the panel that vets nominees for the House of Lords has said any peer that is alleged to have breached pledges given in order to secure their peerage should be investigated.
Lord Jay of Ewelme told the Lords constitution committee this morning that he would expect the Lords Appointment Commission, which he heads, to investigate any allegations of impropriety on the part of a member of the Upper Chamber.
The commission was set up in 2000 to recommend the nomination of non-party political life peers and to vet the nominations of political peers to ensure the "highest standards of propriety".
The former foreign office mandarin was asked by Lord Hart of Chilton about "assurances obtained and commitments given" by people in order to secure their place in the House of Lords.
"It seems to me any undertaking or assurance that given whereby a peerage is then granted should remain on the record with you, if not made publicly," he said.
And the Labour peer wanted to know whether such assurances were kept on file, or if they were shredded.
Lord Jay said while he agreed records should be kept, he did not know for how long the papers were currently retained for.
"Certainly any papers of people who are not appointed are shredded as that is a requirement under the Freedom of Information Act," he said.
"We keep papers of those are appointed," he said. And added he was aware of one case, of Lord Laidlaw, in which the then chairman of the commission felt assurances had not been honoured.
"If there are undertakings given which are not honoured I would expect them [the commission] to take it up with person considered".
In its 2006-07 annual report the appointments commission criticised Tory peer Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay for failing to become resident in the UK for tax purposes despite offering assurances that he would prior to his elevation to the Lords.
The commission last week rejected calls from Lord Mandelson that it investigate the granting of a peerage to Lord Ashcroft – the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party who has been embroiled in a row over his tax status.
It said that as he was made a peer a month before the commission was created it had no retrospective powers to investigate.
And Lord Irvine of Lairg pressed Lord Jay on how the commission assessed the appropriateness of people who were nominated for seats in the Lords.
The former Labour cabinet minister asked whether there had to be a "specific allegation of impropriety" on the part of a political nominee before the commission would investigate.
Lord Jay said that he "would hope the parties themselves would look very carefully at the names they put forward."
"We have written to all the political parties drawing their attention to the need to ensure that in the party political nominations that come forward they are taking account of the need to play a part in the life of the House of Lords and also to meet certain basic criteria."
"Our task in to ensure they meet the criteria we set aside for propriety," he said. "Our duty is not to look at suitability, that is for party political leaders themselves."
And he said that all nominees were examined in the same way.
"We ask the regulatory authorities, HMRC, police and any government department that has had contact whether there is any reason why we should have doubts about propriety," he said.
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd