The House of Lords Appointments Commission (www.lordsappointments.gov.uk) not only selects, according to increasingly strict criteria, those who are recommended for life peerages but, crucially, has the duty to vet all party political nominees for propriety. (Remember the cash-for-peerages affair some two years ago?)
The checks for these potential peers includes the following sentence: to ensure that nominees ……
“have complied, in a straightforward way, with their obligations in relation to taxation and the receipt of benefits; and that there are no serious doubts about their integrity in relation to their working life.”
The Chairman of the Commission, Lord Jay of Ewelme, last week underlined this criterion when he raised some question as to any of those MPs suspected of impropriety with regard to expenses being nominated for peerages by party leaders.
Lord Jay also, earlier this year, revised the criteria for Independent Peerage nominees to emphasise the need to attend. Thus the phrasing was changed from “having the time'” to attend to “be willing to commit the time necessary to make an effective and significant contribution…” Finally those who put themselves forward as Independents (crossbenchers) must be able to convince the Commission of their political independence and “.. the intent to remain independent of any political party.” This may be in response to the ‘defection’ of a peer nominated as an Indpendent leaving to join the Government a couple of years ago!
I’m not sure how desirable it is for the Commission itself to change the criteria it uses. Ought it not be more proper for the terms to be decided elsewhere – resolution of both houses and the commission be merely the administrator of the rules.
On the face of it some of the statements are potentially contradictory: there is an obvious tension between ‘Its recommendations will be made on individual merit and not on any other basis.’ and the commission seeking ‘the composition and balance of the House better reflects the different experience and backgrounds of those living in the United Kingdom’
Unless or until there are some limits imposed upon creations (as there were by acts of parliament both during the regency (1811-12) and the Act of Union (1800) then the work of the commission seems severely limited. Particularly if the remaining hereditary peers are removed and new Conservative peers created after the next election the number of peers the commission can actually choose will potentially drop from ~1/3 to 1/4.
So this is the group that’ll be vetting the soon-to-be Lord Sugar of Amstrad & Baroness Kinnock of Hot-Air.
I guess it’ll be busy, can’t be long before the whole Cabinet are Lords! 😀
“… and that there are no serious doubts about their integrity in relation to their working life.”
So what form can these “serious doubts” take? I assume that the following don’t raise serious doubts:
Having to resign twice from a government position?
Having been involved in the removal of the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards?
Having a pension from a foreign government?
Croft, not sure there is a contradiction? Surely one can be both merit worthy AND have a skill or experience that contributes to the balance in the House?
I have heard it said that the policy of the Appointments Commission in nominating independent peers is to achieve a ‘distinguished dribble’. I certainly would not wish there to be an influx of independents or indeed of party nominated peers – the House is too large already and as I have repeatedly noted, there is no call (or space) for more peers.
Herein lies the real contradiction; the HoL is meant to be a working body to revise and scrutinise legislation. If the Government and other political parties continue to nominate people for peerages, they are simply re-inforcing the idea that a peerage is an honour and not a professional job. Reform could start by abolishing the ‘rewards for the boys and girls’ and keep strictly to appointments needed to ensure wide expertise.
Alfred, yes – point taken. However one result of recent exposures is that there is now a very different standard applied to propriety than was the case a few years ago!
baronessdsouza: You can but only by accident not by design. If you appoint only on merit (as they say) and coincidentally that happens to increase diversity then both would be true. But the commission says that it is only appointing on merit but then implies it is considering diversity. I don’t object to the policy rather I think it should be honest about it and say that it is actively seeking to appoint from minority groups.
The breaking of the Gordian Knot over titles of honour is well within our grasp. At present if you had been created a hereditary baroness not a life peer you would have no seat in the Lords. The obvious solution is a class of life peer (as before the Wensleydale Peerage Case) that has no seat and, with the advantage of the Life Peerages Act, one that does. We can therefore reward those government or society feels need something rather better than a knighthood without putting people into the Lords who have neither the time or perhaps skills necessary.
I could not agree more with Croft. Let anyone have a peerage but let us make sure that this does NOT automatically entitle said peer to a seat in the Legislature. And actually this could be made even clearer by calling those with a seat in the House of Lords something quite different.
Some go for ‘Senator’ but any other suggestions?
The Life Peerage solution seems so straight forward it puzzles me that it’s not happened. Often from outside the Westminster bubble things look simple though the reality isn’t but occasionally I suspect it really is simply but decisions makers can’t see the wood for the trees.
I’m not keen on Senate (Senatus) which derives from old man perhaps doesn’t seem the place to start if you want a fresh image 🙂 Many former British countries had Legislative Councils which might do at a push but somehow I suspect the public would probably be happier with something more Anglo-Saxon than the slightly austere Latinate phrases. Witans which has a better meaning and heritage doesn’t seem promising on sound alone though. Perhaps we need a very British fudge of keeping the name of the chamber and using ML – grandiose plans would probably only end in tears. 😉
I would be strongly resistant to changing the titles too much. I think it might be easier to add LP (Lord of Parliament) to the end of the title – it reflects the Member of Parliament addition more, and doesn’t contribute to the assumption Parliament = House of Commons. So, you have life peerages and life peerages with a Lordship of Parliament.
Definitely opposed to ‘Senator’ and ‘Senate’. ‘Legislative Council’ is… a bit dry, to say the least, but better than Senate. I’d say it’s better to stick with what we’ve got.
But any change would need to be accompanied by some sort of media campaign of some sort. Otherwise you’ll end up with the current lack of knowledge on the House of Lords compounded by many confusing and under-reported changes.
Len – I do wholly agree that there is a degree (some would say a very high degree) of ignorance of what the role of the House of Lords is. Even MPs, while having a vague idea that legislation is amendend and often delayed by the HoL, know little more than this!
If they arrive in the Lords many seem genuinely surprised at the amount of work that takes place around the smallest details of legislation.
The one contradiction that I object to is the habit of the Government appointing people to the Lords while at the same time decrying the fact that it is an unelected House. Perhaps the Governement wants to get as many of its own people on to the Labour Red Benches as it can before elections become the norm?
I like the idea of a Lord Whatever of Wherever LP