CAMPAIGNERS have called for a pause on House of Lords appointments over concerns Boris Johnson will nominate a raft of controversial new peers when he leaves Downing Street.
Number 10 has confirmed the Prime Minister will go ahead with awarding gongs before he departs, with speculation recipients could include controversial names such as former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and even his own father,Stanley Johnson.
Yesterday it also emerged a plan to create 39 new Tory-supporting Lords to help push through contentious legislation had been drawn up by an influential political lobby group that advises Johnson.
The “Project Homer” document drafted by Sir Lynton Crosby’s C|T Group said expanding Tory peers would have meant Johnson could have avoided more than half of the defeats he suffered in the Lords, ITV news reported.
A Number 10 spokesperson said it was “not a government document and does not represent government policy.”
The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has called for an immediate pause on appointments to the Lords and to introduce an elected chamber.
Meanwhile, the SNP said the only acceptable reform would be to “scrap this ridiculous affront to democracy completely”.
Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the ERS, said the House of Lords had more than 800 members – and the only other similar equivalent in the world which had the same numbers was the National People’s Congress in China.
She said a review in 2016 had recommended a cap of 600, and former prime minister Theresa May had shown “restraint” in her appointments.
But she added: “Since then under Johnson, all the progress that was made in terms of reducing the size has been entirely undone, because he hasn’t shown the same restraint in terms of numbers.”
Johnson has previously been criticised over his nominations for peers, such as Tory donor Peter Cruddas, who was appointed against the advice of the Lords commission which vets nominees.
Garland pointed out being a member of the House of Lords was not a ceremonial position, but held “power and influence”.
She said: “Lords have both real influence on the laws that affect our lives, but also for access – access to ministers, access to the corridors of power. So who is in there is really important – but there is no regulation.
“The House of Lords appointments committee can look at the propriety of those going to the House, but in terms of broad suitability they have got no power – so essentially, the Prime Minister can employ whoever they want.”
The ERS wants to see a new system introduced where the public would be able to elect the upper house, with new appointments paused until then.
Garland added: “The broad concern here is we have got public trust in politics in general at an all time low, trust in the outgoing Prime Minister is extraordinarily low.
“What that list looks like – and there have been some names floating about – has the real power to be incredibly corrosive to public trust, to reduce public trust in politics even further.
“I feel like we are in a very precarious point at the moment, we have had a period where politics has been brought into disrepute, and we’ve also got this situation there is no regulation over who can go in there.
“We are in a fragile position and I think it really could corrode public trust even further than it has been already.
“In that sort of situation the right thing to do would be to pause appointments until there is a more long term significant change to this entire operation.”
SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “The UK kids itself on as a beacon of democracy while stuffing the biggest unelected chamber outside of China with even more peers.
“The only acceptable reform is to scrap this ridiculous affront to democracy completely, consigning unelected lawmakers to the dustbin of history for good.”
A House of Lords spokesperson said: “The House of Lords is a busy and effective chamber and plays a vital role in improving legislation, holding the government to account and voting on laws that affect all of us.
“The House has itself has recognised that it is currently too large, offering overwhelming support to the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee that recommended reducing the size of the House to a maximum of 600 members.”
The spokesperson added this was being undermined by “too many appointments”, and the Lord Speaker remains committed to progress for a “smaller and more effective House”.
