The official opposition may not have been thinking only of Lady Mone, baroness of Mayfair, in announcing its proposal to get rid of Britain’s House of Lords.
But as Labour offers a dramatic reform of the country’s 1,000-year-old institution, recent allegations against the Tory peer have hardened perceptions it is “staffed with cronies or supporters of whomever is in power,” the historian Tim Lockley told the Epoch Times.
It has been alleged the 51-year-old Mone received millions from the profits of a personal protective equipment firm awarded government contracts in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic after recommending it to ministers.
It may have been hoped that modern peers like the Glasgow-born Michelle Mone, who built a fortune in a lingerie empire, could be emblematic of a new type of role model when she was ennobled in 2015.
But accusations of cronyism under the premiership of the now ousted Prime Minister Boris Johnson have come to the fore.
As have questions about rewarding political donors and backers with a peerage.
“I think it is more accurate to say that some people have behaved corruptly, and this in itself is damaging to the body politic,” said Robert Barrington, professor of anti-corruption practice at Sussex University, and a spokesman for the Constitution Society.
“In the case of the House of Lords, we have allegations of cronyism—the appointment as lords of individuals who have allegedly paid to be in the legislature through political donations—and the abuse of power by members,” Barrington told the Epoch Times.
“The perception that a peerage is bought is a strong one,” said Lockley, a professor at Warwick University. “Those have existed before, but they seem particularly strong right now.”
And he added, “The Lebedev appointment was also deeply troubling, with concerns raised by vetting bodies being ignored or overruled.”
Earlier this year the government cited national security concerns when it declined to publish advice to Johnson on making businessman Evgeny Lebedev—whose father was reported to have been a Russian KGB spy—baron of Hampton and Siberia, with a seat in the Lords.
Peers With ‘No Experience of Government’
“By its very nature, the House of Lords is not democratic,” Iain Begg, a professorial research fellow at the London School of Economics, told The Epoch Times. But he said the critique of Johnson “is not about this, so much as a disregard for convention.”Lockley went further: “When long-serving MPs effectively retired to the Lords, bringing a vast amount of experience to the chamber, I don’t think that was particularly controversial.
“It’s people with no experience of government, who are appointed simply because of a donation to the Tories, that have caused the current problems.”
Along with their noble title, peers can claim an attendance allowance, with a 2019 investigation finding a third put in for more than £3.2 million despite what appeared to be little contribution to parliamentary business.
Now Labour is offering a clean sweep, by replacing the Lords with a democratically elected chamber, such as in the United States, France, and Australia, to name a few.
But Barrington said it is not the political institution itself falling short, but some who serve in it.
“In the case of the Lords, a system that was vulnerable—because it was easily open to exploitation by those willing to abuse it, for example by cronyistic appointments—has been abused, and that inevitably leads to calls for wholesale reform.
Regional Seats?
An argument in favour of keeping the status quo is that electing members to both houses of Parliament just politicises the system even more.“It can do,” Lockley agreed, “where you have two equal chambers, but you simply need to set out at the start what the parameters are of the upper house, and that primacy remains with the lower house.”
He thinks Britain should avoid the U.S. system where both houses have equal say over legislation.
Begg thinks Germany “where the Bundesrat as second chamber is region-based is likely to be a closer parallel” to Labour’s proposals.
If Labour wins the next general election and its plans for reform go ahead, to what extent could a new elected house of representatives change Britain in real terms? Would it trickle down to the day-to-day?
“Having seats in the Lords linked to the nations and regions would give them a greater voice,” Begg said.
Lockley shares that view and sees an advantage for people in England. “The English regions need more powers since we are a very centralised country,” he said.
“Regions should have more control over lots of aspects of life, especially energy generation, transport and so on,“ he added. ”At the moment they are all hampered by budget controls from Whitehall.”
If the House of Lords is axed it would not be for the first time.
After executing King Charles I during the English Civil War, the lower House of Commons abolished the upper House of Lords in 1649.
The action was repudiated under the restoration of the king’s son, Charles II.
Now in the time of King Charles III, if the House of Lords is again consigned to history, is there a danger of something valuable—precious even—being cast aside?
“In some ways it is shame,” admitted Lockley.
“The House has existed for centuries. There’s also a lot of experience that might be lost and it will be hard to recreate that in the new house,” he added.
“But I think the need for reform outweighs this.”
