I note with interest your article about attendance of peers in the House of Lords (Evgeny Lebedev goes full year without contributing to House of Lords, 21 February). There is of course no requirement under the appointments system for individual peers to undertake work in the upper house, leaving those who wish to regard their peerage purely as an honour free to do so.
I think it is important to note, however, that the Lords itself plays no part in the selection of its members. There is a debate to be had over whether we wish to continue with a system under which prime ministers – and recently resigned prime ministers – choose the vast majority of peers, who are vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) only for propriety.
There is often talk about the upper house being “overstuffed” with more than 800 peers, but the core of regular attenders who carry out the bulk of its work is much smaller. Our current system depends on individual prime ministers being ready to “play by the rules” and be sparing in their award of peerages. In recent years, only one of them – Theresa May – has done so.
A bill now being taken through the upper house by the constitutional expert Lord Norton of Louth would extend Holac’s brief by requiring PMs to seek its advice on whether nominees merit the award and are willing to contribute to the work of the Lords. Government support for such legislation might go some way to addressing the issues raised in your article and allaying any public concern over peers’ work rate. It would also provide an opportunity to consider shifting the balance between political appointments by prime ministers and independent appointments by Holac.
Timothy Kirkhope
Conservative, House of Lords
