Sir Keir Starmer seems to be changing his mind a lot these days. Whether it is welfare cuts or the ‘island of strangers’ speech, a grooming gangs inquiry or winter fuel, the Prime Minister is struggling to keep consistent line on much at present. So it is perhaps no surprise then that the Labour leader has changed his tune on the rules around peerages too.
In a little-noticed statement to parliament, snuck out last Thursday, Starmer provided an update on the ‘roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in making nominations to the House of Lords.’ He addressed the subject of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), saying that:
Advice on propriety is separate to judgements about the suitability of candidates, which are for political parties… The Commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the Sovereign. In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk… The Commission may also provide advice on whether there are any presentational risks associated with a nominee. The Commission does not withhold support for a nominee due to presentational risks.
Hmm. That is a somewhat different tone to the one struck by Labour in opposition. Flashback to 2020 when Labour criticised Boris Johnson’s decision to overrule HOLAC and award businessman Peter Cruddas a peerage. It prompted Starmer’s deputy, Angela Rayner, to declare that ‘there is one rule for the Conservatives and their chums, another for the rest of the country.’ Yet now that Labour is in office, it seems that Starmer is perfectly happy to overrule HOLAC if he deems it necessary…
There is an intriguing sub-plot to this latest Starmer statement too. He goes on to refer to the creation of Crossbench peerages:
As Prime Minister, I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Crossbench peers, based on their public service, including both distinguished public servants on retirement and individuals with a proven track record of service to the public. These nominations will continue to be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Given Starmer’s aforementioned distinction between ‘propriety’ and ‘suitability’, it does raise the question of who exactly he has in mind to sit on the Crossbenches in future…
Comments