Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

House of Lords Appointments

Thursday 25 November 2021 · 6 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 6 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Government does not plan to review the process for appointing peers to the House of Lords.
  • Peerages are awarded based on long-standing contributions to civic life and a willingness to contribute further.
  • The Minister acknowledges that the House of Lords is large but argues that new appointments are essential to maintain expertise and a fresh outlook.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Marion Fellows SNP
Parliamentary Procedure
Context

The question arises from concerns about the fairness and transparency in the process of peerage appointments.

Question

If the Government will conduct a review of the process for appointing peers to the House of Lords. The Minister may deny that the House of Lords is crony-stuffed, but 15 of the last 16 Tory treasurers gave £3 million to the Tory party to get a life peerage and 80% of the UK public think that corruption is fairly or very present in our politics.

Answer from Nigel Adams

The Government do not currently plan to conduct a review. Peerages reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and give these people an opportunity to put something back and contribute to public life.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Abolishing the House of Lords, corruption in appointments

How: Peerages Reflect Contributions To Civic Life

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Richard Thomson
Parliamentary Procedure
Context

The question arises from concerns that many peers appointed since 2010 were ennobled due to their financial contributions rather than talent.

Question

About half the peers in the House of Lords have been ennobled since 2010, with most—I am being charitable—not for their sheer luminosity of talent but the generosity of their bank balance. Does the Minister not see that having a Chamber of cheque writers undermines the credibility of not just the House of Lords but the entirety of Parliament? Is it not time that we just got rid of it?

Answer from Nigel Adams

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point is no. Peerages reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and a willingness to further contribute to public life.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Abolishing the House of Lords

How: Peerages Reflect Contributions To Civic Life

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Marion Fellows SNP
Parliamentary Procedure Standards & Ethics
Context

The question arises from concerns that many peers appointed since 2010 were ennobled due to their financial contributions rather than talent, leading to perceptions of corruption.

Question

If the Government will conduct a review of the process for appointing peers to the House of Lords. The Minister may deny that the House of Lords is crony-stuffed, but 15 of the last 16 Tory treasurers gave £3 million to the Tory party to get a life peerage and 80% of the UK public think that corruption is fairly or very present in our politics.

Answer from Nigel Adams

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we will not be abolishing the House of Lords any time soon. Peerages reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and give these people an opportunity to put something back and contribute to public life.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Abolishing the House of Lords

How: Peerages Reflect Contributions To Civic Life

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Brendan O'Hara SNP Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Standards & Ethics
Context

The question arises from concerns that there is a link between party donations and nominations to sit in the House of Lords.

Question

At last week's Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asked the Prime Minister if he would stop sending big-value donors to the House of Lords. The Prime Minister replied: Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons fund other parties…we need to continue with the system by which public-spirited people give donations. Mr Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister's answer comes dangerously close to an admission of selling peerages, in direct contravention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and is worthy of further investigation. Will the Minister undertake that investigation or does he think it is sufficiently serious to involve the Metropolitan police?

Answer from Nigel Adams

Again, the answer is no. One of the most valued aspects of the House of Lords is the experience that Members bring to their work. The idea that successful businesspeople and philanthropists who contribute to political causes should be disqualified from sitting in the legislature is nonsense.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Investigation into peerage appointments

How: Members Of The House Of Lords Bring Valuable Experience

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 Brendan O'Hara SNP Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Democracy & Elections
Context

The question arises from concerns that there is a link between party donations and nominations to sit in the House of Lords.

Question

I admire the Minister's ability to say that with a straight face. It is disappointing but not surprising that he appears to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system. Maybe he can take this opportunity to explain why, since 2010, no fewer than 22 of the Tories' biggest backers, who have donated a total of £54 million to their coffers, have been elevated to the House of Lords. Will he explain why he believes that stuffing the House of Lords full of wealthy donors, cronies, political allies and those unwilling or unable to be elected somehow enhances and improves our democracy?

Answer from Nigel Adams

Again, successful businesspeople should not be disqualified from sitting in the legislature. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the number of people who have been appointed since 2010. I gently point out that there are just over 800 Members of the House of Lords and 408 of them were appointed by the Opposition when they were in power between 1997 and 2010.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Explanation on recent appointments

How: Members Of The House Of Lords Bring Valuable Experience

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q6 Philip Hollobone Con
Parliamentary Procedure
Context

The question arises from concerns that the size of the House of Lords is too large.

Question

It is good to have a bicameral Parliament, but is not the fundamental problem with the House of Lords simply that it is too large and not enough of them turn up? There are 800 peers compared with 650 MPs, and in the Divisions this month, the average turnout was 378, which is 47%.

Answer from Nigel Adams

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and the outlook of the Lords fresh. We continue to support and encourage the policy of Members of the House of Lords retiring.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Reducing the size of the House of Lords

How: Some New Members Are Essential To Keep Expertise Fresh

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)