Boris Johnson’s recent appointments to the House of Lords have raised significant concerns, as a new analysis reveals that these appointees, many of whom are Tory donors, have contributed a staggering £17 million to the Conservative Party. This practice of filling the House of Lords with party donors, at a rate double that of previous prime ministers over the last decade, has sparked criticism and calls for reform from various quarters.
During Johnson’s tenure as Prime Minister, 50 Tory peers were nominated for the House of Lords, and among them, 14 were either existing party donors or went on to donate money. This troubling trend has prompted scrutiny of the current system, with campaigners arguing that it is not suited for its purpose and has a corrosive effect on trust in democracy.
The data, which encompasses 276 appointments to the House of Lords from 2013 to the beginning of 2023, highlights the glaring difference between Johnson’s approach and that of his predecessor, David Cameron, who had a lower rate of donor appointments. Prominent among the appointees are individuals with significant wealth, including billionaire businessmen such as Michael Spencer and Michael Hintze, as well as multimillionaire banker Peter Cruddas.
Even in cases where the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommended against an appointment, Johnson, in a controversial move, pushed through the elevation of Peter Cruddas to the House of Lords in 2021. Another notable appointee is former MP Zac Goldsmith, who has donated over £500,000 to the Conservative Party throughout the years.
According to openDemocracy, overall, some £51.8m was donated by Lords appointees by the parties that nominated them. Just under a quarter (64) of appointees over the last decade were party donors, and almost half (128) have a political connection to party appointees.
The vast majority – £46.8m – of that was donated to the Conservative Party, or an average of £1.5m per each of the 27 donors we know gave money to the party. The 15 biggest Tory Lords-appointee party donors were:
- Michal Farmer (£9.5m)
- Michal Spencer (£7.9m)
- Anthony Bamford (£5.5m)
- Michal Hintze (£4.7m)
- David Brownlow (£3.56m)
- Peter Cruddas (£3.54m)
- Alexander Fraser (£3.51m)
- James Lupton (£3.48m)
- Rami Ranger (£1.59m)
- Zameer Choudrey (£1.38m)
- Zac Goldsmith (£600,753)
- Ranbir Singh Suri (£344,135)
- Jitesh Gadhia (£246,990)
- Howard Leigh (£226,931)
- Aamer Ahmad Sarfraz (£187,250).
The Tories were followed by the Liberal Democrats, which received £2.4m from its 27 Lords appointees since 2013. Much of that was small amounts donated after each candidate’s appointment, but one appointee, Rumi Verjee, has donated over £1.9m to the party.
The vast majority of Labour’s £2.37m donations came from one source – William Haughey.
Haughey, appointed a Lord in 2013 by then Labour leader Ed Miliband, is a Scottish businessman and refrigeration magnate with an estimated family net worth of over £250m (as of 2017). Before and after his appointment he has made a total of £2m in donations to the party.
The alarming correlation between those receiving peerages and political party donors is a pressing issue, undermining public confidence in the democratic process. Campaigners, such as Willie Sullivan from the Electoral Reform Society, advocate for a transparent and democratic overhaul of the appointments system for the House of Lords. They believe that the public, not former prime ministers, should have the authority to select individuals who shape the country’s laws.
The analysis reveals that donations totaling £51.8 million were made by Lords appointees to the parties that nominated them. An overwhelming majority of these donations, £46.8 million, went to the Conservative Party, with an average of £1.5 million from each of the 27 known donors. The list of the 15 largest Tory Lords appointee party donors underscores the scale of this financial involvement in politics.
Other parties, while not reaching the same level of donations, have also faced questions about appointments to the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats received £2.4 million from their 27 Lords appointees, with notable contributions from Rumi Verjee. Labour’s donations, amounting to £2.37 million, were primarily attributed to a single source, William Haughey.
Although political parties are not explicitly prohibited from nominating donors or party insiders to the House of Lords, the prevalence of this practice raises concerns about the potential for wealthy individuals to buy influence and access to political power.
In addition to examining donations, the analysis also considered the political connections of appointees. The share of Tory and Labour appointees with either donations or political ties was approximately 83%, highlighting the widespread nature of this issue. The majority of Liberal Democrat appointees (96%) also had connections to the party or were donors.
This analysis did not encompass other forms of honors, such as knighthoods or MBEs, and did not include Johnson’s recent resignation honors list.
A government spokesperson defended the current system, arguing that peers’ political backgrounds and involvement contribute to public service in Parliament and reflect contributions to civic life. Nevertheless, the revelations about the large sums donated by Lords appointees to political parties raise questions about the need for transparency, fairness, and democratic accountability in the appointments process for the House of Lords.
