Boris Johnson controversy calls entire honours system into question, warns damning Lords report

The controversy over Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list has called the whole system of appointing people to the House of Lords into question, a cross-party group of peers has warned.

The lord speaker’s committee said the system for appointing peers must be overhauled in order to restore public confidence in politics and reduce the size of parliament’s upper chamber.

Mr Johnson’s resignation honours list was mired in scandal and saw him accused of “cronyism” – mostly notably in the attempt to push through a peerage for staunch ally Nadine Dorries.

The former culture secretary promised to quit her seat in fury over her failure to gain a peerage, alleging that “posh boy” Rishi Sunak had blocked the honour, a claim denied by No 10.

Mr Johnson also raised eyebrows by handing a peerage to 29-year-old former adviser Charlotte Owen. It was claimed that her role at No 10 had been exaggerated as she was described as “extraordinarily junior”.

A special committee appointed by lord speaker John McFall warned that episodes such as the controversy over Mr Johnson’s list have “brought the appointments system into question”.

The senior peers said a “fair and sustainable” appointments system must be put in place – either by legislation or agreement between the parties – before a permanent reduction in the size of the Lords can be achieved.

A reformed system is needed to end the “ratchet effect” of incoming prime ministers nominating large numbers of peers to ensure they can get their business through the upper house, said the committee.

They said the reforms would also have to tackle the imbalance in party representation – the chamber is currently dominated by Tories – as well as lowering the average age of members, and that there must be an end to hereditary peerages, which distort the political and gender balance of the House.

open image in gallery

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to scrap the current House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber of “nations and regions”. But Sir Keir is said to be drawing up plans to appoint dozens of Labour peers to stop his legislative agenda from being frustrated.

There are growing concerns about the size of the upper chamber, with its 779-member ranks set to be swelled by Mr Johnson’s resignation honours list. There are 174 Labour figures in the Lords, compared to 263 Tory peers.

The lord speaker’s committee produced a plan in 2017 to reduce numbers on the Lords red benches from about 800 to 600 over the subsequent decade through a “two-out, one-in” system.

But the latest report said that the failure to make progress since then meant that the size of the House was now a “second-order issue”, to be addressed only after the introduction of a sustainable appointments system.

The committee said the system should include a cap on the maximum number of peers, which is currently unlimited; a fixed-term limit – which could be 15 years – for service in the Lords; and a fair allocation of new appointments based on recent election results.

open image in gallery

The committee’s fifth report also proposed new reforms to enhance the independence of the process of appointing non-political crossbench peers, describing the current system as “a muddle”.

The report said that the presence of non-political members – such as scientists, medics, charity campaigners and artists – on the cross benches was “one of the most distinct and valuable elements of the House”.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) has since 2012 been restricted to two or three nominations of non-party peers a year, with the result that a large majority of crossbenchers are now appointed by the prime minister.

The committee recommended that prime ministers are limited to a maximum of 10 of their own crossbench appointments per parliament, and that they increase the number of members they allow Holac to appoint.

Noting that the current system had led to a “preponderance” of Tories and a “significant” under-representation of the opposition, the report concluded: “Dealing with this situation is important.”

Lord Burns, the chair of the committee, said: “The political leadership should focus initially on putting in place a sustainable and fair method of allocating appointments. This will set the basis for a cap and a sustainable reduction in the size of the House.”

Lord McFall, the speaker of the Lords, said the report “provides recommendations which would reinforce the reputation and effectiveness of the Lords”, adding: “I hope they will be considered seriously and carefully.”