The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

House of Lords Scandals

The United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal was a major political scandal that emerged in 2009, concerning expenses claims made by members of the British Parliament in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the previous years. The disclosure of widespread misuse of allowances and expenses permitted to Members of Parliament (MPs) aroused widespread anger among the UK public and resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Several members or former members of both the House of Commons, and members of the House of Lords, were prosecuted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

A February 2008 Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal but challenged by the House of Commons Authorities on the grounds that it was "unlawfully intrusive". In May 2008 the High Court (England and Wales) ruled in favour of releasing the information. In April 2009 the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed "sensitive" removed, would be made in July 2009. But before this could take place the expenses records and documentation were leaked to The Daily Telegraph newspaper, which began publishing details in daily instalments from 8 May 2009. These disclosures dominated the British media for weeks. On 18 June 2009 the details of all MPs' expenses and allowance claims approved from 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website with detail such as addresses, claims that were not approved for payment and correspondence between MPs and the parliamentary fees office removed, bringing further accusations of unnecessary secrecy and allegations that this might have prevented serious abuses from being disclosed.

A nice little earner

A Labour peer claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses covering every single day the House of Lords was sitting last year, despite never speaking or asking any written questions. The former trade union general secretary David Brookman was among dozens of other lords and baronesses who never took part in a single debate, while almost a third of the 800 peers barely participated in parliamentary business over a 12-month period despite costing almost £3.2m in allowances. Eighty-eight peers – about one in nine - never spoke, held a government post or participated in a committee at all.

Forty-six peers did not register a single vote, including on Brexit, sit on a committee or hold a post. One peer claimed £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once.
More than 270 peers claimed more than £40,000 in allowances, with two claiming more than £70,000.
The former Lords speaker Frances D’Souza, a long-term advocate of reform, said the findings corroborated “what everyone suspects is going on”, and that a minority of peers risked discrediting the hard work of their colleagues.

“There’s clearly a need to reduce numbers,” Lady D’Souza said, adding that the research “clearly shows there are people who are attending the House of Lords who are not contributing, and therefore they are simply redundant”.

The steel company magnate Swraj Paul attended on 157 days and claimed more than £47,000 of allowances, but only spoke once. He did not serve on a committee, though has done in the past.

The Sunday Times’ analysis found one peer, Lord Cunningham, claimed £79,000 last year while making just 17 spoken contributions in the House. Lord Paul claimed £48,000 in expenses despite his £ 2 billion family fortune and spoke only once in the chamber.

Millionaire Lord Bhatia, who has previously been suspended from the House over expense claims, cashed in £44,530 in expenses after turning up 149 out of a possible 161 days — yet did not address the House or sit on a committee.

15 peers claimed £585k while not speaking in a single Lords debate: Fifteen members of the House of Lords did not say a word in the chamber, sit on a committee or hold any government post during the last parliament, while claiming more than £500,000 in allowances between them

Corrupt Appointments and dodgy people

Boris's mate dodgy Russian becomes a Lord

Evgeny Lebedev peerage The controversial appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the Lords has increased calls for reform

Controversy has surrounded Lebedev’s peerage after it emerged that the commission expressed concerns about his elevation to the Lords and asked Downing Street to reconsider in March 2020, after advice from Britain’s spy agencies. The appointment went through only after it was resubmitted amid pressure from Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson’s resignations honours list giving new ammunition to those who want parliament’s upper chamber thoroughly reformed or replaced. Anger at the former prime minister ennobling a “carousel of cronies” – including his loyal but inexperienced advisers Ross Kempsell and Charlotte Owens – On 9 June 2023, it was announced that Owens would receive a life peerage in Johnson's resignation honours. The decision was criticised, as Owen was perceived to be inexperienced and not to have contributed significantly to British politics or society. Two former 10 Downing Street members of staff told Tortoise Media that her appointment to the peerage was "completely staggering – her peerage is one of the most strange and hardest to explain because she was so extraordinarily junior". A Whitehall source said that she was the "most egregious" on Johnson's list of peerages. The source described her appointment as "impossible to defend, even as somebody who broadly thinks the current peerage system is right".

Baroness Mone and her three adult children had been secretly paid £29m from the profits from PPE contracts. The PPE company she was linked to is now under investigation.

Michelle Mone became well known in her native Scotland for the bra and lingerie company Ultimo, which she built up with her first husband, Michael Mone. David Cameron appointed her as a Conservative member of the House of Lords in 2015. In November 2022, the Guardian reported that leaked documents produced by HSBC indicated that her husband Doug Barrowman was paid at least £65m from PPE Medpro’s profits. Medpro supplied unusable PPE equipment to the NHS. The national crime agency has said it began an investigation in May 2021, and was looking into “suspected criminal offences committed in the procurement of PPE contracts by PPE Medpro”.

For every one and a half days that Liz Truss was in power, she created a peer – 32 in total. Whilst her premiership didn’t last very long, these new legislators will have a seat in the House of Lords for life.

2024 Over one in five peers appointed in the last ten years who have also donated to a political party, 68 out of 284. – over £58 million. That cash is almost certainly exchanged for peerages, despite this being a criminal offence.

The Cash-for-Honours scandal, also called Cash for Peerages or Loans for Honours, was a political scandal in the UK during 2006 and 2007. It involved links between political donations and the awarding of life peerages. A gap in UK election laws meant that small donations to parties had to be declared publicly. However, money lent at commercial interest rates did not need to be disclosed.

From 2000 a House of Lords Appointments Commission nominated a proportion of peers who were not linked with a party. However, the prime minister and other party leaders continued to make nominations on party political grounds, and no agreement was reached on making the Lords either wholly or partly elected, so it continued to lack democratic legitimacy.

In March 2006, several people nominated for peerages by Prime Minister Tony Blair were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It later came out that these individuals had loaned large sums of money to the Labour Party, following advice from fundraiser Lord Levy. Some suspected that the peerages were a reward for the loans. The allegations led to three formal complaints to the Metropolitan Police, including by MP Angus MacNeil, Plaid Cymru leader Elfyn Llwyd, and an unidentified person. They accused the Labour Party of selling honours. Assistant Commissioner John Yates led the police probe, but he later resigned over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. The investigation involved questioning members of Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats. Labour’s Lord Levy was arrested and later released on bail. As the inquiry continued, leaks damaged the government and Labour Party’s reputation.

After the scandal broke, Labour had to repay the loans and struggled financially. The police probe was lengthy and wide-ranging. It considered charges such as perverting the course of justice, linked to alleged efforts to manipulate evidence. At one point, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, issued an injunction against the BBC, stopping them from reporting certain stories. He claimed the stories were sub judice — under review in court. This led to questions about a possible conflict of interest, since the Attorney General is a political appointee. Tony Blair was questioned three times, but only as a witness and not charged with any crime.

In July 2007, after reviewing the police files, the Crown Prosecution Service announced no charges would be brought. They said there wasn’t enough proof that peerages were promised in exchange for loans. They explained that proof of a prior agreement was needed for a conviction. Even without charges, some believe the investigation hurt Tony Blair’s reputation. It is thought to have played a role in his decision to step down as Prime Minister.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse