Peerages for Atawdry tale of Tony’s cronies sale
THE honours system is corrupt and won’t stop being corrupt until it is ended. For generations, prime ministers, desperate for party cash, have cynically played on the egos of rich men and sold them peerages, knighthoods and minor honours in return for a tiny part of their fortunes.
If love makes the world go round, so bribery greases the wheels of politics.
Of course, not since the days of Lloyd George, a serially corrupt politician whom the purer than pure Liberal Democrats still revere, has any prime minister been so reckless as blatantly to equate baubles with boodle.
He gave out honours like an addictive gambler issues IOUs. He distributed 25,000 OBEs alone in his time at Number 10.
His corruption was so notorious that the resultant scandal put a stop to it – but only until a more subtle arrangement could be made for subsequent prime ministers to do the same without leaving their fingerprints on these shabby bribes.
The dismal truth is that everyone in politics and business knows: Give a sizeable donation and you probably won’t have to wait until Heaven to reap your reward.
Every year or so, an ‘ honours for cash’ row breaks out, then dies down. Sleaze is alleged and indignantly repudiated.
The same row is about to break out again when Tony Blair presents his latest list (of course, the honours are nominally given by the Queen in her name. But that’s a fiction. She agrees to her Prime Minister’s every suggestion, sometimes with as little distaste as she can muster).
If the leaked list is to be believed – and it can – the new peers will include such household names as Sir David Garrard, a property millionaire who has donated £200,000 to the Labour Party and £70,000 to the Tories (giving a new meaning to spread betting), and Sir Gulam Noon, who has donated £ 220,250 to Labour over the past four years. On the Tory list will be Robert Edmiston, who has given £250,000 to the Conservatives; Tory treasurer Jonathan Marland, who has given more than £100,000; and Mohamed Sheikh,
strengthen it. Also, I had no who donated £38,000.
intention of appearing on the
It practically goes without saying
same list with the kind of men he that none parted with their
was bent on honouring – and hard- earned emoluments in the
bent is the right word. hope of an honour.
I warned him about ennobling
Sir Joseph Kagan, a long-time
benefactor to his private office,
telling him the Inland Revenue
was investigating the Gannex
raincoat manufacturer.
But he not only received a
peerage from Her Majesty but
subsequently spent ten months
as her guest, without the option
of a fine, in one of her penal
establishments.
I expressed my doubts, too,
about a knighthood for Eric
Miller, a businessman who was
as free with his company’s
money as he was with his own –
a failing which led to his blowing his brains out before Scotland Yard could arrest him.
Wilson was not the most corrupt wielder of patronage in
modern times, just the clumsiest. He gave a peerage to Sir
Desmond Brayley, inarticulate
and near illiterate, after he
handed over a package of, presumably, used notes from which
my own salary was paid for
some months.
An attempt to give a minor
honour – a CBE or OBE – to a
South London building contractor was delayed for six months
because no one could find a
plausible reason for him getting
anything. And it was widely
NEVERTHELESS there is a remarkable series of coincidences! The tawdry truth is that an awful lot of men ( it’s rarely women) yearn for the title of peer, but not the responsibility.
They want the privilege, not the power. They can afford to do without the expenses for attending the Lords. Their wallets are stuffed with enough already.
They want to be known as Lord X, not for their good works but for their vanities. They don’t mind being called ‘ Tony’s cronies’ because they’re thickskinned enough to ignore the abuse.
Equally, they don’t care if their nomination poisons the system of democracy in this country. They’ve got what they wanted.
So much for a second chamber of working peers. If there’s a yacht to be sailed, a party to throw, a cocktail party to give, you won’t see them in the Lords. When Harold Wilson offered me a peerage, I turned it down on the grounds that I wanted to abolish the House of Lords, not alleged – but never proved, because these things are so often unprovable, given our libel laws – that when Sir Michael Sobell received a knighthood during Ted Heath’s premiership, his promised donation was delivered in two parts – one before his award and the other afterwards.
It was like buying a title on tick . . . but then I suppose he wanted to make sure of things.
An analysis of peerages granted to industrialists (not for nothing was the brewery section of the Lords known as The Beerage) over the past 70 years will – to put it mildly – arouse suspicions.
But these regular favoursforcash rows could be ended. It would be simple to make certain everything is above board. A law could be introduced to forbid anyone receiving an honour if they or their company have contributed to a political party more than, say, £ 5,000 during the previous five years.
If such a reform does not lead to a serious falling off of large donations, then those of us who regard the honours system as corrupt will have to apologise. On the other hand, if it does lead to a shortfall of funds for our political parties, that will create another problem. But at least it should be an honest one. TONY Blair is facing an investigation by parliamentary sleaze watchdogs over claims that he has traded peerages for cash.
Labour was branded ‘patently corrupt’ after leaked documents showed the Prime Minister has agreed to reward a string of millionaires who have given money to the party with seats in the House of Lords.
The list of new peerages includes Sir Gulam Noon, the so- called ‘Curry King’, and Sir David Garrard, both of whom have made donations totalling more than £200,000 to Labour. Sir David, a property developer and financier had previously paid £70,000 to the Tories.
Sir Chai Patel, the head of the Priory rehab centre who has twice given money to Labour, is also rewarded, along with Barry Townsley, a donor who also supports Mr Blair’s controversial city academy programme in failing schools.
The list of ‘Tony’s Cronies’ has so angered the parliamentary standards watchdog Sir Alistair Graham that he has summoned the head of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which rubber stamps the nominations, to discuss the situation.
Sources close to the Appointments Commission revealed that they too are unhappy with some of the names.
An insider said: ‘The Commission is looking very closely at some of these nominations.’ The source said it was ‘ not inevitable’ that they would all be given the go-ahead.
The intervention of Sir Alistair, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in the matter of peerages for party donors is thought to be unprecedented.
His committee has no power to prevent the appointments – but if he speaks out against the nominations it would be a grave embarrassment to Mr Blair.
Sir Alistair’s only weapon is to shame the Government, an option he exercised over the David Blunkett affair and seems ready to deploy again.
The Tories are also rewarding the millionaires who bankrolled their General Election campaign. Among the nominees are Robert Edmiston, who gave £250,000, and Tory treasurer Jonathan Marland, who has donated more than £100,000.
Solicitor Mohamed Sheikh, who gave the Tories £ 38,000, and City troubleshooter David James, who gave them £18,550, also make the list.
Mr Blair is also handing a peerage to Maggie Jones, a close friend of his wife Cherie who was parachuted in as the Labour candidate in the safe hand back when it emerged Labour had exempted motor racing from its ban on tobacco sponsorship.
He also referred to the fact that two million- pound donors, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Drayson, have since been made ministers. Mr Bell spoke out against the appointment of Maggie Jones. ‘She was rejected by the people. There was a popular insurrection against her and against party politicking but now she is rewarded for her failure.’
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: ‘ The appointments process for the House of Lords has fallen into total disrepute. The people with the biggest chequebooks are first in the queue. This makes Lloyd George look clean.
‘It seems to be that a quarter of a million pounds buys you a peerage, half a million buys you a ministerial post. Perhaps it is a million to get into the Cabinet.’
Mr Blair provoked anger when he scrapped the Honours Scrutiny Committee this year.
Responsibility for examining the nominees now falls to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, chaired by Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, which checks candidates’ ‘credibility’ but can only advise the Prime Minister if it disagrees.
It is Lord Stevenson who has been asked to give evidence to Sir Alistair’s standards committee.
The appointment of donors as peers flies in the face of two of the committee’s ‘ seven principles of public life’: That holders of public office should not ‘ gain financial or other benefits’ or ‘place themselves under any financial or other obligation’. A spokesman for the Standards Committee said: ‘ We have seen in recent days that the Committee is not without influence when it makes its voice heard.’ Mr Blair’s official spokesman refused to comment on the nominations, which are expected to be published this month.
t.shipman@dailymail.co.uk