Cash for Honours: Tory Donors’ Participation in the House of Lords Under Scrutiny
Several Conservative Party donors acknowledged peerages have raised questions about their contributions in the House of Lords.
Rami Ranger, a businessman appointed to the House of Lords as part of Theresa May’s 2019 resignation honours list, described his peerage as the realization of a lifelong dream.
Having immigrated to the UK from India in 1971, he built a successful marketing and distribution company, Sun Mark, and became involved in Conservative party activities.
Despite applying for a non-political peerage twice without success, Ranger became a substantial donor to the Conservative Party, reportedly contributing around £1.4 million prior to his appointment.
Since his appointment, Ranger has participated minimally in House of Lords activities, with only five contributions noted over five years.
He has neither submitted written questions nor participated in any committees, which stands in stark contrast to the average frequency of speech for a peer, recorded at 188 instances per parliament.
In 2023, Ranger faced censure for derogatory remarks concerning Pakistanis and was judged by the Lords commissioner for standards to have bullied a journalist, leading to his removal from the Conservative party whip and the loss of his Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) title.
This practice of awarding peerages to party donors has drawn criticism from various quarters.
Labour peer George Foulkes, in a 2021 speech, highlighted four Conservative donors, including Ranger, Michael Spencer, Anthony Bamford, and Peter Cruddas, who have frequently been criticized for their lack of participation in the Lords.
Foulkes labeled these peerages as forms of 'cash for honours,' which he described as damaging to the integrity of the House.
Ranger responded to inquiries regarding these criticisms, asserting that he had not purchased his peerage and emphasized his contributions to party fundraising and community engagements.
He noted his influence and standing among Conservative leaders.
The term 'cash for honours' has significant implications within British political discourse.
Selling honours has been a criminal offence since 1925, after a corruption scandal involving former Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George.
Historically, however, there have been no prosecutions related to such matters, as the Crown Prosecution Service interprets the law restrictively, suggesting that honours can only be considered a quid pro quo if there is clear agreement to award them in exchange for financial contributions.
Despite this, the practice continues across major political parties in the UK, with peerages often granted to financial backers, particularly since the Conservative party returned to government in 2010. Under a new requirement initiated in December 2020, party leaders are now mandated to provide a summary of their reasoning when nominating individuals for peerages.
In a move to address these concerns, Conservative peer Philip Norton proposed legislation aimed at reforming the appointments process, suggesting that it should focus on individuals demonstrating significant merit and a willingness to engage constructively in the House of Lords.
Norton has stated that perceptions of peerages being a reward for donations undermine the credibility of the Lords.
Boris Johnson’s tenure saw heightened scrutiny over peerage appointments, notably when he selected Peter Cruddas, a significant Tory donor who had previously faced allegations related to raising funds for political influence.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission had advised against his nomination, based on a history of allegations involving the sale of political access.
Johnson, however, characterized Cruddas as a valuable prospective contributor.
Cruddas, in his defense, asserted that his peerage stemmed from his support for Brexit and claimed active involvement in political matters through regular attendance and voting, despite limited public participation.
Other notable Conservative donors who received peerages include Michael Spencer, who has contributed approximately £7.5 million to the party and has not announced any contributions to significantly influencing legislation within the House.
Anthony Bamford’s tenure was also marked by minimal speech contributions, having spoken only five times during his decade of membership before retirement last year.
Labour has similarly awarded limited peerages to multi-million donors, exemplified by William Haughey, who, despite significant contributions, has rarely engaged in House discussions.
Concerns regarding the ethics of placing major donors in positions of legislative authority remains a focal point of debate, as critics call for structural reforms to mitigate potential conflicts of interest within the House of Lords.
Having immigrated to the UK from India in 1971, he built a successful marketing and distribution company, Sun Mark, and became involved in Conservative party activities.
Despite applying for a non-political peerage twice without success, Ranger became a substantial donor to the Conservative Party, reportedly contributing around £1.4 million prior to his appointment.
Since his appointment, Ranger has participated minimally in House of Lords activities, with only five contributions noted over five years.
He has neither submitted written questions nor participated in any committees, which stands in stark contrast to the average frequency of speech for a peer, recorded at 188 instances per parliament.
In 2023, Ranger faced censure for derogatory remarks concerning Pakistanis and was judged by the Lords commissioner for standards to have bullied a journalist, leading to his removal from the Conservative party whip and the loss of his Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) title.
This practice of awarding peerages to party donors has drawn criticism from various quarters.
Labour peer George Foulkes, in a 2021 speech, highlighted four Conservative donors, including Ranger, Michael Spencer, Anthony Bamford, and Peter Cruddas, who have frequently been criticized for their lack of participation in the Lords.
Foulkes labeled these peerages as forms of 'cash for honours,' which he described as damaging to the integrity of the House.
Ranger responded to inquiries regarding these criticisms, asserting that he had not purchased his peerage and emphasized his contributions to party fundraising and community engagements.
He noted his influence and standing among Conservative leaders.
The term 'cash for honours' has significant implications within British political discourse.
Selling honours has been a criminal offence since 1925, after a corruption scandal involving former Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George.
Historically, however, there have been no prosecutions related to such matters, as the Crown Prosecution Service interprets the law restrictively, suggesting that honours can only be considered a quid pro quo if there is clear agreement to award them in exchange for financial contributions.
Despite this, the practice continues across major political parties in the UK, with peerages often granted to financial backers, particularly since the Conservative party returned to government in 2010. Under a new requirement initiated in December 2020, party leaders are now mandated to provide a summary of their reasoning when nominating individuals for peerages.
In a move to address these concerns, Conservative peer Philip Norton proposed legislation aimed at reforming the appointments process, suggesting that it should focus on individuals demonstrating significant merit and a willingness to engage constructively in the House of Lords.
Norton has stated that perceptions of peerages being a reward for donations undermine the credibility of the Lords.
Boris Johnson’s tenure saw heightened scrutiny over peerage appointments, notably when he selected Peter Cruddas, a significant Tory donor who had previously faced allegations related to raising funds for political influence.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission had advised against his nomination, based on a history of allegations involving the sale of political access.
Johnson, however, characterized Cruddas as a valuable prospective contributor.
Cruddas, in his defense, asserted that his peerage stemmed from his support for Brexit and claimed active involvement in political matters through regular attendance and voting, despite limited public participation.
Other notable Conservative donors who received peerages include Michael Spencer, who has contributed approximately £7.5 million to the party and has not announced any contributions to significantly influencing legislation within the House.
Anthony Bamford’s tenure was also marked by minimal speech contributions, having spoken only five times during his decade of membership before retirement last year.
Labour has similarly awarded limited peerages to multi-million donors, exemplified by William Haughey, who, despite significant contributions, has rarely engaged in House discussions.
Concerns regarding the ethics of placing major donors in positions of legislative authority remains a focal point of debate, as critics call for structural reforms to mitigate potential conflicts of interest within the House of Lords.
