A new investigation has raised concerns about accountability in the House of Lords. It reveals how several peers benefit from commercial interests while shaping public policy. The findings highlight weaknesses in the rules governing lobbying and paid employment. Critics argue that urgent reforms are needed to restore public trust.
One in ten Lords members receive payment for political or policy advice, according to official declarations. Others hold roles that could create conflicts of interest. Despite restrictions on lobbying, some peers work as consultants for companies with business before parliament. The lack of stricter rules raises serious ethical concerns.
The investigation also uncovers the massive flow of money into politics from those connected to the Lords. Over the last two decades, donors linked to peerages have contributed more than £100 million to the three main parties. This financial influence has fueled debates over whether party funding affects appointments.
While many Lords members contribute to refining legislation, the chamber has grown significantly. It now has 835 members due to repeated appointments of donors and party loyalists. Critics argue that this expansion has made reform even more urgent. The push for change has gained momentum, with some calling the current system “indefensible.”
Darren Hughes, from the Electoral Reform Society, called for stronger transparency measures. He warned that conflicts of interest undermine trust in politics. “The House of Lords should not be a political gated community,” he said. He urged reforms to prevent further erosion of public confidence.
The findings reveal troubling details about financial interests in the Lords. Nearly 100 members receive payments for policy advice. Some peers have earned millions by working for multiple companies. Others are paid by foreign governments, including authoritarian regimes. Political donations from peers make up a significant share of party funding.
Labour previously pledged to reform the Lords but has made slow progress. Keir Starmer once called the chamber “indefensible” and backed a transition to an elected body. However, proposed changes—such as setting an age limit and reforming appointments—have yet to materialize. Critics fear these reforms will be delayed indefinitely.
The government is exploring ways to reduce the size of the Lords. However, none of the current plans include stricter rules on lobbying or paid employment. Unlike MPs, peers receive expenses instead of a salary and can hold outside jobs. They are not required to disclose how much they earn from advisory roles.
Recent controversies have put pressure on lawmakers to act. A former transport minister withdrew from a lobbying firm after public backlash. The firm later parted ways with two other Lords advisers. Some experts argue for a complete ban on peers working for lobbying firms or advising companies on political matters.
Public affairs expert Gabe Winn strongly opposes Lords members taking payments from lobbyists. He insists the rules must be clear: “Make policies for the public or get paid to influence them—but never both.”
The government remains officially committed to reviewing the Lords appointment process. Party leaders continue to nominate candidates for approval by the monarch. Many selections are based on previous political service or significant financial donations. Labour recently appointed several key allies to strengthen its influence in the chamber.
With political shifts on the horizon, speculation is growing about potential new Lords members. Reform UK could seek peerages if it gains traction in upcoming elections. Some believe a future Conservative-Reform alliance could include high-profile Lords appointments, mirroring political strategies in the U.S.
As debates continue, one thing remains clear: the House of Lords faces scrutiny over conflicts of interest. Critics insist that without meaningful reform, public trust in politics will continue to erode.
Stay tuned to London Pulse News for updates on the unfolding investigation and the push for accountability in the House of Lords.
