Monday, June 12, 2023
The mystery of the eight disappearing peerages
A lot of people were surprised when Boris Johnson's resignation honours list was published to find so few peerages for his parliamentary friends and allies. Indeed, there is speculation that it was this, rather than the Privileges Committee report, that prompted the three resignations from Parliament on Friday. Clearly, there was a feeling amongst Johnson and his pals that Rishi Sunak had betrayed his predecessor, though he strongly denies this.
The Independent reports that the House of Lords Appointment Committee has, according to the Institute for Government think tank, confirmed it rejected eight peerage nominees put forward by Mr Johnson on the grounds of propriety.
They add that the suggestion is that the committee may have rejected the peerages for MPs on the basis that they were not already due to stand down. But where was the Prime Minister in all of this? The paper says that Downing Street denies that the prime minister blocked the peerages:
In an interview with the BBC, cabinet minister Grant Shapps insisted: “The committee would have to say if the prime minister removed anyone.
“The prime minister has exactly followed the very long-standing conventions of prime ministers who simply take the list and pass it on and receive it back.”
Alright – but if not the prime minister, then what about someone on his team? Pushed on whether someone in No 10 had purged the list, Mr Shapps replied: “My understanding is no. As far as I’m aware, that is not true.”
Mr Sunak’s press secretary has also said the prime minister forwarded his predecessor’s list to the Holac (House of Lords appointment committee) vetting process, which then passed back the approved list.
Mr Sunak then accepted the commission’s approved list and “forwarded it unamended to the Sovereign for their approval”, she said.
Though Downing Street and its allies have not quite said this, the seeming implication is that Johnson never nominated the MPs and that it is wrong to blame Sunak.
Yet this leaves us with a mystery: why would Boris Johnson promise peerages and then not nominate his allies? There is no cost to the former prime minister for nominating the peers.
The fact no sitting MPs are on the list at all should raise eyebrows. Even Alok Sharma, who was due to get a peerage for his widely respected work as Cop26 president, missed out.
And it is undeniable that the coming by-elections – apparently triggered in spite by slighted MP – will be difficult for Mr Sunak.
When asked whether Mr Johnson’s original submission contained names that do not feature in the committee-approved document sent to the King, No 10 said the list remained confidential. Yet it has released other confidential documents to try and prove Mr Sunak had nothing to do with blocking the peerages.
The opacity of the honours system does nobody any favours. It generates resentment and suspicion, and favours patronage over merit. Surely, it is time that nominations and decisions at all stages of the process were opened to scrutiny.
The Independent reports that the House of Lords Appointment Committee has, according to the Institute for Government think tank, confirmed it rejected eight peerage nominees put forward by Mr Johnson on the grounds of propriety.
They add that the suggestion is that the committee may have rejected the peerages for MPs on the basis that they were not already due to stand down. But where was the Prime Minister in all of this? The paper says that Downing Street denies that the prime minister blocked the peerages:
In an interview with the BBC, cabinet minister Grant Shapps insisted: “The committee would have to say if the prime minister removed anyone.
“The prime minister has exactly followed the very long-standing conventions of prime ministers who simply take the list and pass it on and receive it back.”
Alright – but if not the prime minister, then what about someone on his team? Pushed on whether someone in No 10 had purged the list, Mr Shapps replied: “My understanding is no. As far as I’m aware, that is not true.”
Mr Sunak’s press secretary has also said the prime minister forwarded his predecessor’s list to the Holac (House of Lords appointment committee) vetting process, which then passed back the approved list.
Mr Sunak then accepted the commission’s approved list and “forwarded it unamended to the Sovereign for their approval”, she said.
Though Downing Street and its allies have not quite said this, the seeming implication is that Johnson never nominated the MPs and that it is wrong to blame Sunak.
Yet this leaves us with a mystery: why would Boris Johnson promise peerages and then not nominate his allies? There is no cost to the former prime minister for nominating the peers.
The fact no sitting MPs are on the list at all should raise eyebrows. Even Alok Sharma, who was due to get a peerage for his widely respected work as Cop26 president, missed out.
And it is undeniable that the coming by-elections – apparently triggered in spite by slighted MP – will be difficult for Mr Sunak.
When asked whether Mr Johnson’s original submission contained names that do not feature in the committee-approved document sent to the King, No 10 said the list remained confidential. Yet it has released other confidential documents to try and prove Mr Sunak had nothing to do with blocking the peerages.
The opacity of the honours system does nobody any favours. It generates resentment and suspicion, and favours patronage over merit. Surely, it is time that nominations and decisions at all stages of the process were opened to scrutiny.
