I’m not saying that some Lords and some MPs are not venal. Look at Archer and consider Laidlaw and Ashcroft. But the Times has got a bit scummy these last few years. And I’m left wondering why they didn’t follow through and get some of the Lords actually signed up.

Taking money to influence legislation is corruption, and if these “vermin in ermine” were councillors on the Planning Committee of a local authority casting their votes for cash-filled brown envelopes, they would risk ending up in jail – they’d certainly have to resign.

It is reassuring that you take the stance you do, but the sad truth is that many others cannot be trusted to rely on integrity where this simply does not exist, and there are no sanctions to persuade them otherwise.

Simply put, why should the rest of us bother obeying principles of decency and integrity when MPs and peers do not? The only answer I can think of is self-respect.

In any other form of public service you’d probably all have been sacked by now. But, oh yes, Lords can’t be sacked. So you’re ok then.

They say that their undercover journalists approached ten peers – three tories, one Lib/Dem, one Ulster Unionist and five Labour.

The three tories did not return their calls, the Lib/Dem and Ulster Unionist met them but declined to help, but the article says that four of the five Labour peers were willing to discuss ways to help the supposed client. Lord Toby Harris must presumably have been the fifth Labour peer they approached.

Although he found it an unpleasant experience – which I entirely understand – Toby actually comes out of this well. But if the Sunday Times can substantiate their article, his four colleagues do not.

It’s NOT the journalists that we the public have to question, as Chris so rightly points out, ………………..it’s YOU and YOUR fellow Labour Lords.

Sleaze & corruption are now firmly associated with the Labour Party and would appear to be endemic in it.

That label will follow you ALL to your political grave.

I suspect your posting here and the statement is an attempt to place either a little space (clear red water ?) between yourself and your rather underwhelmingly unintelligent and seemingly greedy colleagues, or an attempt to turn the “guns” onto the journos involved.

What this needs (and what it won’t get anywhere) is a full enquiry from outside the house of lords. Someone completely independent. The problem is that the “ruling” setup we have here is geared towards everyone in it protecting their own – we make banana republics look clean.

You seem to think the journalists – ‘hints and innuendo … deception … attempted entrapment’ are the unethical ones. What, so it’s not in the public interest to know that the legislature can be bought?

It’s called journalism. That’s what they do. They were investigating reports – true reports, as it turns out – that peers were offering to bend the law for cash. Of course they went undercover – they can’t exactly phone you up and ask if the rumours are true. It was an excellent piece of journalism from an excellent team of journalists.

So you declined to do something that was blatantly wrong. What do you want, a badge to sew on to your scout’s uniform? Surely a little integrity is the least we can expect.

On the contrary, your decision not to condemn those who were named in the article smacks of moral cowardice.

Of course wrongdoing should be exposed, but it is also very disturbing that the Sunday Times deliberately set out to entrap by persuading people to do things they shouldn’t. I get the impression these people would be the first to shout ‘jump’ at someone standing at a window ledge but then publish the picture of the suicide hitting the ground. I don’t think the journalistic ‘profession’ comes out of this terribly well.