Conclusions and recommendations
Political Honours
1. We
welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of 23 March that he
will no longer add his own names to the twice-yearly honours lists
which have already been subject to scrutiny by the independent
committees. This decision will help to reinforce the propriety
and independence of the system. It is a practice which we trust
will be continued by future Prime Ministers. (Paragraph 14)
2. We will review
the law as it affects public life and corruption as part of a
further report, once the police investigation is complete and
the lessons from it are available. We have invited the police
to contribute to this review. (Paragraph 21)
3. Making it explicit
that nominations to the peerage entail appointment to the legislature
rather than the award of an honour would make those nominated
to be working peers more like those appointed to be ministers
in the Upper House. This would make the credibility of members
of a parliamentary party in the Second Chamber the direct responsibility
of the parties concerned. It would be consistent with the case
put to us that it has always been the convention that parties
place supporters of their policies in the Upper House. As a consequence,
it should also make the manner in which such nominees are chosen
by the party leadership a matter of active interest and responsibility
for the party itself. Such a shift would, of course, have to be
modulated to reflect the eventual character of a reformed House
of Lords, possibly elected in whole or in part. (Paragraph 30)
4. We welcome the
Appointments Commission's announcement that it intends to make
abundantly clear on their forms and other material their absolute
requirement to be informed about any financial or other matter
which might affect consideration of a nomination for the peerage.
Political parties have a duty to follow the spirit, as well as
the letter, of the law and ensure that they are open and honest
about the information they provide. (Paragraph 34)
5. Scrutinising nominations
for higher honours to assess the appropriateness of any financial
connection or other valuable consideration which may exist between
candidates and a political party should go beyond reliance on
the Electoral Commission's register of donations even when the
legislation is amended to require all loans to be declared. A
declaration form, to be signed by the candidate, stating whether
or not there are any financial or other connections with a political
party which could affect the award of an honour should accompany
a "sounding" letter which makes a conditional offer
of an award to an individual. (Paragraph 36)
6. We believe that
an assessment of whether an individual is of sufficient merit
for an award should include not just contributions to party funds
but also whether a nominee has contributed to or supported government
programmes in a material way. This might include, for example,
sponsorship of city academy schools or a contract to supply government
services. There may well be good grounds for honouring those who
have contributed to government programmes, but the process for
the assessment must be transparent. (Paragraph 37)
7. Greater transparency
in the process would, in our view, also help to allay doubts over
certain awards. In our report in 2004 we recommended that citations
for all honours should be published. Recent events have only added
force to our argument. Once again we would strongly commend this
approach, at least for the higher honours. (Paragraph 38)
8. Consideration should
be given as to whether the Appointments Commission or the honours
committees should undertake this enhanced scrutiny process. (Paragraph 39)
9. The Prime Minister's
vague assurances and the Appointment's Commission "understanding"
that it will vet any resignation honours list are unnecessarily
equivocal. The Appointments Commission is specifically charged
with considering names which have not been subject to the normal
assessment and selection processes. This body should be clearly
and unequivocally responsible for vetting Prime Ministerial resignation
honours lists. (Paragraph 46)
10. Wider party responsibility
over the choice of candidates should also help to overcome concerns
over MPs announcing their retirement from the Commons in the immediate
run up to a general election and being subsequently ennobled in
the dissolution honours list. The impression of peerages being
offered as inducements in kind, rather than conferred in the expectation
of future participation in the legislature, is damaging. To the
extent that it happens, it should stop. (Paragraph 49)
The House of Lords Appointments Commission
11. The
Appointments Commission has shown that it can scrutinise nominations
effectively and stand up to pressure from political parties. Nevertheless,
its position should be reinforced by defining the Appointments
Commission's role, powers and independence in statute as soon
as possible, and certainly as part of any reform of the House
of Lords which retains an appointed element of its membership.
(Paragraph 53)
The Appointments Process
12. The
Appointments Commission is quite candid about the judgements it
is required to make and how it interprets the criteria it has
set for itself. However, because these are necessarily value judgements,
we believe the Appointments Commission—and those responsible
for the general honours system—should consult with the political
parties and more widely about the criteria that ought to be applied
in assessing propriety and how they should be interpreted. Ultimately
decisions about the probity of individual nominees must rest with
the Commissioners and the Committees but we believe that wider
consultation about the basis on which judgements are made would
help to reinforce the legitimacy of the process. It is also important
that confidentiality is maintained in relation to individual names.
(Paragraph 61)
| 
