The authors of the most exhaustive study of the link between donations and peerages ever undertaken say it is high time for the reform of the Lords

Rumours of “cash for peerages” have circulated for decades. With one of us having heard what sounded like a pretty explicit admission from a lord that they had bought their peerage, we thought it would be enlightening to not only look up whether he was a big donor (he was), but to test this claim across the board. This led to our producing the first full-scale independent academic study across all parties, of the link between peerages and big donations.

The findings are astonishing: so many donors have been nominated to the Lords in the last decade, that the odds of this being pure coincidence are those of winning the National Lottery jackpot five times running. Saying “nothing’s going on here” no longer seems credible. The system has to change.

This isn’t just a matter of questionable political leadership, but is the inevitable consequence of both desperation for party funding and a system based on patronage. All three major parties have nominated “big donors” to the Lords, and even Nigel Farage – who has been unable to appoint new peers – has rued what limits Ukip’s fundraising efforts: “They [other parties] can give out peerages; we can’t. There’s no doubt about it.”

Our research highlights the fact that serious questions remain over the whole system of appointment to the House of Lords. Selection will always be more prone to suspicion of “backroom deals” than open elections. While money can influence an election, the final say always remains with the voters. No such safeguard exists for the House of Lords.

Our study found that nominees for a peerage since 2005 had an 8.6% chance of being a “big donor”; whereas there was just a 0.2% probability that someone elected to the House of Commons over the same period was a big donor. Clearly, an appointed chamber with a seat for life is more appealing to such big donors than the risk of having to ask people for their vote every five years.

The Parliament Act 1911 guaranteed the dominance of the elected Commons over the Lords. Envisioned as an interim measure, it stated its longer-term intention was to “substitute” an upper house “on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”. A century later, this remains unfinished business, and so a legislature based on feudal patronage goes on. In a country with exploding inequality and increasingly concentrated wealth, we need a system of government that is responsive to the people as a whole, not just those with the deepest pockets. It is hard to see how an appointed chamber meets any of those needs.

The unpalatable truth is that you get the democracy you pay for: if we do not pay for elections as a public good, then big donors will always have their interests put above the voters’, politicians will have to turn to them first, and we will continue to see “big money” dominate the halls of power. We need a popular democracy, not an insurance policy for the already powerful.

Historically, investigating allegations of cash for peerages has been difficult, because securing a successful prosecution under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 has been almost impossible. However, since 2011, the Bribery Act 2010 also applies, and so anyone who has traded in peerages should feel justice looming. As Lord Cormack has publicly acknowledged: “The biggest abuse is putting party donors into the House of Lords. This has happened from all three parties, even in the last five years.” Only robust proposals for reform will dispel the feeling that something is rotten in the state of Westminster.