Boris Johnson's 'crony' peerage list has sparked demands for an inquiry into House of Lords reform.
Gina Miller, who led the successful legal action against Boris Johnson ’s Brexit prorogation in 2019 and now leads the True and Fair party, has written to Public Administration Committee chair William Wragg, urging him to launch a probe.
Among Ms Miller's suggestions are a 400 seat limit on membership - cutting the chamber almost in half.
She said it was “absurd” that Prime Ministers like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, who left office in disgrace, should be allowed to nominate peers.
She wrote: “The primary roles of the House of Lords are to provide independent expert legislative scrutiny, shape laws, as well as to check and challenge the work of the government.
“It is not a reward for over-zealous loyalty or donations.”
She also suggested 10-year limits on membership - and scrapping hereditary peers entirely.
Ms Miller wrote: “I believe much of the public and, indeed, many politicians are concerned about these Honours Lists. It is, therefore, perfect timing for your Committee - which examines constitutional issues - to launch an inquiry into the reform of the House of Lords, including the Honours List.
Such an inquiry could become the launchpad for the House of Lords to ultimately set the gold standard for Upper Chambers around the world.”
Here's the letter in full
Dear Mr Wragg
HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM INQUIRY
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. As you may be aware, I am Leader of the True & Fair Party, which launched earlier this year with the mission of cleaning up and modernising British politics.
In recent weeks, there have been numerous reports about the Honours Lists of not one but two former Prime Ministers, the first of whom was forced to resign following a litany of scandals. The other, Liz Truss, did not even survive in office for 50 days, having crashed the economy during that record-breaking short tenure.
Given the circumstances, it seems absurd that either of these failed Prime Ministers should be allowed to draw up Honours Lists. This also highlights one of the flaws in our political system, which deeply compromises the Upper Chamber. The primary roles of the House of Lords are to provide independent expert legislative scrutiny, shape laws, as well as to check and challenge the work of the government. It is not a reward for over-zealous loyalty or donations.
I believe much of the public and, indeed, many politicians are concerned about these Honours Lists. It is, therefore, perfect timing for your Committee - which examines constitutional issues - to launch an inquiry into the reform of the House of Lords, including the Honours List. Such an inquiry could become the launchpad for the House of Lords to ultimately set the gold standard for Upper Chambers around the world.
Should you agree to hold an inquiry, I would be delighted to submit evidence regarding my Party’s calls for House of Lords reforms. These include:
- Reducing the House of Lords to 400 members. Currently there are around 800 peers who are eligible to take part in the House of Lords. This is a ludicrously unwieldy number and many peers barely take part. It is the largest upper chamber in any democracy – and is only surpassed by China. There are only some 400 seats in the House of Lords, so it is logical and prudent to have 400 active peers who can be accommodated at any one time.
- No member of the House of Lords to sit longer than 10 years. Becoming a peer is an honour, it should not be a job for life. A decade gives peers plenty of time to learn parliamentary process and apply their judgement for the good of the country. Any longer turns a peerage into a cosy retirement plan with well-funded restaurants, while more regular refreshing of peers would bring new ideas and modern perspectives.
- Abolition of hereditary peers. Members of the House of Lords should be appointed on merit. What is important is their expertise, not their mum or dad. There can be no entitlement when the country needs the best and brightest.
- Prime Ministers who lose confidence votes must not be allowed to make honours nominations. While this would not have excluded Boris Johnson from nominating peers, it is a straightforward way of making sure the Honours List does not become a reward or consolation for executive failure.
- A minimum one year of service as Prime Minister to qualify for an Honours List. It is clearly inappropriate for anyone who enters and leaves Number 10 in a matter of months, weeks or even days to reward or promote those who briefly supported them. A minimum length of service before being allowed to make those nominations would restore some public faith in the system.
- The quality of the Honours Hist must be more strictly scrutinised. Merely making donations to party offices or lending Prime Ministers their holiday homes are not reasons to be nominated for a peerage.
- The Prime Minister should not set the strategic direction for each Honours List. The type of recognition they would prefer to see on the honours list should not be guided by a Prime Minister’s priorities. These should be independently agreed and codified.
I hope you will consider this request for an inquiry into the House of Lords as a matter of urgency. The abuse of our democratic system cannot be allowed to continue and public mistrust be allowed to fester. I have faith that you and your committee will look to re-establish the authority, good standing and integrity of the Houses of Parliament.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Gina Miller
Leader, True & Fair Party
