A Guardian report reveals conflicts of interest and calls for stricter regulations on Lords’ activities amid growing concerns about transparency.

Guardian Investigation Uncovers Financial Ties of House of Lords Members with Commercial Interests

A months-long investigation by the Guardian has highlighted troubling conflicts of interest within the House of Lords, as it emerges that a significant number of members are benefiting financially from commercial engagements. The findings suggest that one in ten peers are paid to offer political or policy advice, with others engaged in business dealings that could compromise their legislative duties.

The report sheds light on the weaknesses in the current code of conduct and raises the question of whether the Lords’ rules on paid employment and lobbying should be reformed in line with the stricter rules governing Members of Parliament. The revelations also underscore the growing financial influence in politics, with over £100m donated to the three main political parties in the last 20 years, much of it from a small circle of wealthy super-donors who also hold peerages.

While many Lords contribute to the scrutiny and refinement of legislation, the size of the chamber has swelled to 835 members after successive prime ministers appointed party loyalists and donors. This has prompted calls for reform, with Labour leader Keir Starmer previously calling the House of Lords “indefensible” and expressing support for its overhaul. Despite promises from the Labour Party for reform, such as reducing its size and addressing its lack of diversity, there has been little action on the matter since the 2022 review by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The investigation found that nearly 100 members of the House of Lords are being paid for providing political advice to commercial companies. Additionally, some peers have been linked to foreign governments, including those with controversial regimes. The findings reveal that over £1 in every £14 donated to political parties since 2001 has come from individuals who were or are sitting as Lords.

The report also highlights concerns over governance and transparency, with calls for greater accountability to safeguard against potential conflicts of interest. Darren Hughes, CEO of the Electoral Reform Society, stated, “The House of Lords should not become a political enclave dominated by party donors and friends of politicians. These revelations emphasise the urgent need for reforms that would ensure greater transparency and accountability.”

Although some Lords reform proposals were included in Labour’s election manifesto, such as the introduction of an age limit of 80 for members and a review of the appointment process, critics argue that these measures have yet to materialise, and fear that they will be delayed indefinitely.

The current system of peerages, which often includes political donors and former ministers, has been criticised for reinforcing a system of patronage, undermining the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords. Keir Starmer himself has spoken out against the system, stating that the House should be replaced with an elected chamber to better represent the public.

In addition to these concerns, the Lords’ code of conduct allows members to work as advisers or consultants for private companies, as long as they do not directly influence government decisions. However, some members of the public and political commentators, including Gabe Winn, head of the public affairs company Blakeney, are calling for a complete ban on paid consultancy work by peers, claiming that such roles inevitably lead to conflicts of interest.

The investigation also touches on the removal of hereditary peers, with the government pledging to reduce their number, but without tackling the underlying issues regarding the appointments process. As the Labour Party continues to appoint more allies and former advisors to the House, there are growing concerns that without a comprehensive overhaul, the House of Lords will continue to operate with little scrutiny and accountability, maintaining a system that is increasingly seen as outdated and undemocratic.