Now is the time for Labour to signal we will not cooperate with Conservative cronyism, by supporting practical proposals that will end abuses of the House of Lords appointments system. We should certainly not have legitimised David Cameron’s outrageous resignation honours by recommending anyone in this round of appointments. Shami Chakrabarti is a worthy candidate for the peerage, but she could have been included in a more established route to the Lords, rather than Labour cooperating with the last-ditch attempt of a prime minister to help out his mates.
I suppose we shouldn’t have been surprised by Thursday’s resignation honours list. In many ways it was a fitting end to the Cameron era, defined as it was by a tendency to govern via a cosy chumocracy based in Notting Hill and Chipping Norton. But I was still shocked by the scale of the unapologetic cronyism that the final list revealed. There is a peerage for Olivia Bloomfield, whose contribution to public life included working as chief of staff to the Tory party treasurer and at a City firm that summarises its investment strategy as “exploiting dislocations in markets”. Andrew Cook, who nobly served his country by donating over £1.2m to the Conservative party, receives a knighthood. Investment banker Jitesh Gadhia also becomes a lord. He is a highly valued member of the Tories’ Leader’s Group – an exclusive set of donors who attend private dinners at No 10 and enjoy privileged access to senior cabinet members.
I am sure these are talented people, but the honours system exists to acknowledge people who have served their country with unprecedented distinction through voluntary work, bravery on the battlefield, exceptional public service or notable achievements in sport, industry, science or the arts. Peerages should be given to people who will use their experience, expertise and insight to improve the work carried out by the House of Lords.
Prime ministers are not required to issue resignation honours lists and neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair did so when they left office. But Cameron seemed determined to sprinkle his friends and closest supporters with gongs and baubles. His successor, meanwhile, chose not to block Cameron’s nominations. Theresa May delivered some stirring words outside No 10 about standing up for ordinary people rather than the privileged few, but her refusal to intervene will do nothing to convince her detractors that her actions will match her rhetoric. Rewarding those who enjoyed privileged access to the prime minister, socially and professionally, is a powerful reminder that the Tories will always put their own interests before others. Earlier this week, I called on the prime minister to end this shabby system of patronage. By refusing to do so, she has failed her first test of leadership, and the public will judge her harshly.
She still has a chance to make good on her promise to put working people before the interests of a privileged elite, by making real and lasting reform to our honours system.
In 2012, Cameron rejected most of the recommendations from the public administration select committee on reform to the honours system. It criticised the lack of parliamentary involvement in the committee that scrutinises honours. If a future prime minister does decide to create a resignation honours list, MPs must examine it closely and be given the power to veto inappropriate candidates. Parliament has taken its power back from prime ministers in recent years. No longer can a prime minister use the royal prerogative to commit our country to war. Parliament has also exercised the right to challenge government appointments, including the children’s commissioner or chair of the BBC Trust. It must now do so for appointments to the second chamber and the gongs list.
It is time for May to restore public faith in the anachronistic honours system, before it becomes a euphemism for cronyism. If she doesn’t, a future Labour government will.
