Comments on: Forthcoming highlights http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/02/forthcoming-highlights/ Life and Work in the House of Lords Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:26:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: lordnorton http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/02/forthcoming-highlights/comment-page-1/#comment-4625 lordnorton Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:59:08 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=2938#comment-4625 Croft: There is indeed a category that effectively falls between the two categories of party nominations and Appointment Commission crossbench nominations. Peers can still be created on the nomination of the Prime Minister (distinct from party appointments), though he has limited himself to no more than ten in a Parliament. However, this category does not appear to be watertight, as the following extract from the latest annual report of the Appointments Commission suggests: "13. The Prime Minister has reserved the right to nominate directly to Her Majesty The Queen a limited number of distinguished public servants on their retirement for non-partypolitical peerages. The Prime Minister has decided that the number of appointments covered under this arrangement will not exceed ten in any one Parliament. The Appointments Commission vets any such nominees. During the year the Prime Minister nominated one individual under his reserved power, the Rt Hon Sir Robin Janvrin. 14. In addition to his ten exceptions described above, the Prime Minister also nominated the new Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, for a life peerage on his appointment to the office. The Commission vetted this nomination." Croft: There is indeed a category that effectively falls between the two categories of party nominations and Appointment Commission crossbench nominations. Peers can still be created on the nomination of the Prime Minister (distinct from party appointments), though he has limited himself to no more than ten in a Parliament. However, this category does not appear to be watertight, as the following extract from the latest annual report of the Appointments Commission suggests:

“13. The Prime Minister has reserved the right to nominate directly to Her Majesty The Queen a limited number of distinguished public servants on their retirement for non-partypolitical peerages. The Prime Minister has decided that the number of appointments
covered under this arrangement will not
exceed ten in any one Parliament. The
Appointments Commission vets any such
nominees. During the year the Prime Minister
nominated one individual under his reserved
power, the Rt Hon Sir Robin Janvrin.

14. In addition to his ten exceptions described above, the Prime Minister also nominated the new Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, for a life peerage on his appointment to the office. The
Commission vetted this nomination.”

]]> By: Croft http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/02/forthcoming-highlights/comment-page-1/#comment-4624 Croft Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:03:41 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=2938#comment-4624 Can I get a clarification on another matter as no doubt those above may be the subject of discussion as they come up. I was under the impression that peerages for 'working peers' (ie party choices to sit and vote for the party) were only subject to probity checks by the HOLAC. All other life peers were to be nominated by the HOLAC. I'm therefore somewhat puzzled by the proposed peerage for the ex-speaker which as convention dictates he does not sit/vote for a party doesn't seem to fall into 'working peers' but seems to be proceeding as those it did with only a probity check. Clan you clarify explain what's happening here? Can I get a clarification on another matter as no doubt those above may be the subject of discussion as they come up.

I was under the impression that peerages for ‘working peers’ (ie party choices to sit and vote for the party) were only subject to probity checks by the HOLAC. All other life peers were to be nominated by the HOLAC. I’m therefore somewhat puzzled by the proposed peerage for the ex-speaker which as convention dictates he does not sit/vote for a party doesn’t seem to fall into ‘working peers’ but seems to be proceeding as those it did with only a probity check. Clan you clarify explain what’s happening here?

]]>