THE SNP have called for a public inquiry into “cash-for-honours”.
The call comes after the Prime Minister raised 36 people, including some of his party’s biggest donors, to the House of Lords.
Among them was millionaire Michael Spencer who has donated some £6 million to the party’s coffers.
As well as the big-money donors, those granted a cushy job for life included former Scottish Tory chief Ruth Davidson, Johnson’s brother, Jo, former cricketer Ian Botham and Russian-born newspaper owner Evgeny Lebedev.
Along with the Labour and non-affiliated peers, the total number of un-elected peers is now to close to 800.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson admits there are too many peers – after naming 36 new ones
Analysis by the Financial Times, published last week, said of the 308 peers created over the last 13 years, 15 were Tory donors, three were Labour benefactors and four were LibDems.
The majority of the cash came from the Tory-backing businessmen, including £3.5m from Stanley Fink, £8.2m from Anthony Bamford, £8.6m from Michael Farmer, £3.3m from James Lupton, £3.4m from Alexander Fraser and £2m from David Brownlow.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: “Pressure is mounting for an overhaul of the Lords, after this shocking batch of cronyistic appointments.
“Even the Lord Speaker recognises that this situation is untenable and has completely over-ridden even the Lords’ modest attempts at self-regulation.
“At over 800 members, this bloated chamber is making a mockery of democracy.”
A Tory party spokesperson told the FT: “Party donations do not play any part in the selection process. It is wrong to criticise individuals being honoured just because they have also chosen to donate to a political party.
“Donations should be transparent, but that is not an excuse to knock people for broader philanthropy, enterprise and public service.”
READ MORE: This is every new peer on the latest House of Lords honours list
The SNP’s Pete Wishart said: “The House of Lords is utterly undemocratic and should have been abolished decades ago – but the Westminster parties have clung on to it and used it to reward their donors and cronies.
“It might just be an amazing coincidence that so many major donors to the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats have all been given peerages but many will conclude that the system stinks.
“It’s time for a fresh ‘cash-for-honours’ public inquiry to determine the role that political donations are playing in the Westminster establishment and appointments to the Lords.
“The Westminster system is rotten to its core. It is ridiculous that Tory and Labour leaders have been able to hand out peerages like sweeties to their friends, family, and donors like a banana republic. In any other country that would rightly be considered corrupt.
“If Baroness-in-waiting Ruth Davidson had any integrity she would hand her own peerage back and refuse to sit in this archaic swamp of Brexit cranks, donors and apparatchiks.”
Meanwhile, the ERS said the new batch of Lords only added to the upper chamber’s lack of regional representation. Their analysis found that nearly a quarter of peers are based in London compared to just 13% of the UK public.
Over half – 55% of peers – live in the capital, or the East and South East of England.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel