House of Lords speaker calls for better vetting of prospective peers

Receive free House of Lords updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest House of Lords news every morning.

Nominees for political peerages should undergo deeper vetting of their suitability to take a seat in the House of Lords and be required to commit to active participation as a legislator, the speaker of the UK’s second chamber has urged.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Lord John McFall set out a range of proposals to improve the standing of the upper house that could be implemented “immediately” by the government, without the need for contentious legislation. 

The blueprint centres on handing new powers to the House of Lords appointments commission (Holac) in order to tighten up the process for approving political nominees.

The push by the Lord Speaker comes in the wake of the controversy over some of the peerages handed out by former prime minister Boris Johnson in his resignation honours list.

His nominees included Baroness Charlotte Owen, a 30-year-old former aide whose only political experience has been a series of backroom jobs. She was formally ennobled earlier this month.

McFall, a former Labour MP, would not be drawn on the suitability of specific peers but insisted he wanted a more “vigorous approach” to vetting nominees.

Speaking after the upper chamber rose for its six-week summer recess, McFall said: “I don’t think the House of Lords is fully understood. But if there’s a superficial view of the House of Lords, then it’s negative.”

His assessment is borne out by polling. Two-thirds of the British public have no or not much confidence in the House of Lords, while less than a fifth have a lot or a fair amount of confidence, according to a poll by YouGov earlier this year.

Reform of the second chamber has long been mooted by both main political parties and McFall expects it to be part of the debate in the run-up to next year’s general election.

“Whilst Lords reform isn’t at the top of everyone’s agenda, it will form part of the debate. It’s a big constitutional issue,” he said, noting the ruling Conservatives’ 2019 election manifesto pledge for a review. Opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer has said a Labour government would aim to scrap the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber.

McFall cautioned against pushing through a rapid overhaul: “A fully elected house . . . a radical change such as that could risk serious damage to the effectiveness of parliament as a lawmaking institution.”

He remains an enthusiastic supporter of the role played by the Lords but is determined to improve its reputation. “On the patronage issue, we need a new, fair, sustainable system.”

At present Holac vets political nominations “for propriety only”, including whether “they paid their taxes or have “gone to prison”, he said. A tougher process could involve Holac conducting a “more forensic examination” of political nominees to ensure they exhibit a level of “conspicuous merit” that warrants elevation to the Lords.

Holac could also be empowered to confirm that nominees were “willing to participate in the house with the skills that they have”, he said, pointing to long-held criticism that some political appointees, who all become life peers, contribute little to parliament. 

Both proposals were put forward by Tory peer Lord Philip Norton in a private members bill. However, Rishi Sunak — or a future prime minister — could choose to introduce them as “immediate initiatives” without legislation, McFall said.

He also called for Holac, which currently reports to the Cabinet Office, to become an independent body and be given powers to make its decisions binding rather than advisory.

In addition, McFall would like to see the cap lifted on the number of crossbench “expert” peers that Holac is allowed to appoint each year.

Before then prime minister David Cameron imposing an annual limit of two “expert” cross-benchers a decade ago, Holac appointed on average five peers per year. McFall said a return to that level would allow a “refresh” of the chamber and ensure it has “a range of expertise”.

He suggested these changes could “could assist in quelling voter disquiet regarding appointments”.

Jess Sargeant, associate director of the Institute for Government, welcomed most of McFall’s proposals as “reasonable and implementable”, and described the lifting of the Holac “expert” appointments cap as “very sensible”.

However, she warned that asking Holac to judge “subjective” criteria such as the merit of political appointees could put the body in a “difficult” position.

Sargeant also questioned whether such reforms would “fundamentally solve what people perceive to be the problem with the House of Lords in terms of its lack of democratic legitimacy”.

McFall also identified the swollen size of the chamber as an area ripe for reform, insisting the number of peers “absolutely” must be reduced. The House of Lords has almost 800 members, making it the second-largest legislative chamber in the world behind China’s National People’s Congress. 

He said any reduction in size should be agreed between the government of the day and opposition parties. Proposals have included term limits for peers and introducing a “two out, one in” system.

McFall said he met Sunak in private this month to discuss Lords reform, presenting a recent report he commissioned on reducing the size of the chamber, as well as the proposals concerning appointments that he set out to the FT.

He also plans to write to Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey over the recess and hopes to meet both in the autumn.

Government officials said Sunak had been in “listening mode” but had no plans at present to press ahead with reform to the upper chamber.