Chris Rennard has been a member of the Liberal Democrat party for more than 40 years and was awarded a peerage in 1999. Chris Rennard has written his account of becoming involved with the Liberal Democrats with his book, “Winning Here”.
Statement by Lord Rennard to Times Radio
Friday 6th February 2026
All allegations made against me were investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service in 2013 in what was acknowledged by one of the complainants to be a “thorough and professional investigation”. After interviewing all concerned and considering any evidence they decided not to send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service and took no further action.
A thorough investigation of all allegations was then undertaken by an independent lawyer Alistair Webster KC following very extensive appeals for any complaints concerning me and any evidence. His report submitted to the party in December 2013 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to hold a disciplinary hearing. The report he submitted did not include the word “credible”. His report was accepted by the relevant party body in January 2014.
A further investigation was conducted by another independent lawyer as to whether there were any grounds at all for any form of disciplinary action against me and it concluded that there were not. This conclusion was accepted by the party in August 2014 when all disciplinary action against me ended.
There was then an independent review of all these process by the businesswoman Helena Morrissey MBE who is now a Conservative Peer. She concluded in December 2014 that, “At this point, December 2014, every investigation has concluded with no further action to be taken against Lord Rennard. The process over the past nearly two years – conducted according to the prevailing rules – has run its course and although the outcome is a source of great frustration to some, I believe that the Party can only move on if that outcome is accepted. At this stage, given that the Party applied its own processes, there is no justification for it remaining ambivalent towards Lord Rennard – he should be just as welcome a participant or guest at Party events as any other”.
Lord Rennard in Parliament
King’s Speech – Debate
I am mindful of the irony of raising issues of democracy in what is now an entirely appointed Chamber. My expectation when I entered the House in 1999 was that there would soon be elections to this place, and I never thought that it would take 29 years just to complete the removal of the right to sit here of hereditary Peers.
That modest step has taken place only 115 years since it was promised in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. That legislation from Asquith’s Liberal Government made reforms to the powers of the House pending it becoming a body
“constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”. Democracy is not perfect.
In 1947, Churchill said that:
“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.
Churchill [Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]
So I believe that letting people use ballot papers to choose at least most of us who sit in this place, as opposed to relying on the personal whims of Prime Ministers and party leaders, would strengthen our effectiveness. It would avoid the accusations of cronyism that sully the reputation of the House, reduce the number of scandals concerning party finances, and prevent the prospect of peerages being bestowed, or blocked, as a means of persuading potential appointees to toe a particular line, switch party support, or open a chequebook. Too many appointments have been made here to make people Ministers, who then shortly afterwards give up on that job, or of people who want the title but not the responsibility, and who also rapidly disappear.
It took 27 years to end the temporary gentlemen’s agreement allowing for the holding of by-elections to replace departing hereditary Peers because of determined filibusters by a handful of Members. It was clear that the will of the House on that issue was unfairly blocked. So it was with the assisted dying Bill, where it was made impossible to return the Bill to the Commons for it to be considered further. I am strongly opposed to introducing timetables in this place for government legislation, but I think the time has come for us to be able to agree timetables for Private Members’ Bills.
We also need in this Session to strengthen legislation to safeguard core democratic principles. The latest Representation of the People Bill fails to do that because it does not provide for a cap on the size of donations to a political party except for those from overseas. Extremely wealthy donors can potentially buy a political party, purchase a party leader, and change the outcome of a General Election with, for example, the reported £1 million payments to two party leaders to make them agree on an electoral pact.
We need to put a cap on the size of any one donation in any one year. I suggest that the precise limit should be proposed by the Electoral Commission. Donations such as Frank Hester’s to the Conservative Party of £20 million in the previous Parliament, and those of Christopher Harborne, perhaps of up to £30 million, to the various iterations of the Reform Party and its leader, must be banned if our democracy is not for sale.
