Correspondence from the House of Lords
Appointments Commission (HoLAC)
Letter from HoLAC to the Chairman, dated
4 October 2007
I am writing in advance of the meeting with
you and your colleagues on the 11 October to update our memorandum
of May 2006 setting out the scrutiny system and the changes made
up to that date. As we have done throughout our seven year life,
the Commission has reviewed its approach to the scrutiny of nominees
in the light of the 2005-06 Working Peers List.
As a result of this we have introduced two changes:
(a) The first was to clarify beyond any doubt
that all relationships—financial or otherwise—that
could reasonably be seen to have influenced a nomination must
be declared. This is regardless of whether or not it has or should
have been declared to the Electoral Commission. We believe that
it was always clear from our guidance that we expected such relationships
to be declared—indeed in the past nominees have declared
loans to us—but we have now ensured that this expectation
is explicit.
(b) The second was to make clear that we
would decline to vet nominees who were not resident in the UK
for tax purposes. We are no longer willing to accept assurances
from nominees resident outside the UK that they would become tax
resident upon appointment to the House. This change was introduced
in light of our experience of vetting a working peer who was not
UK resident at the time of his nomination and who has subsequently
taken leave of absence from the House. Nominees and the political
parties are now asked to confirm not only that the nominee is
currently resident but that he or she intends to remain so. A
nominee's UK tax residency is verified with Her Majesty's Revenue
and Customs (this has always been checked as part of our enquiries
of HMRC).
Both these points have been emphasised in letters
to the party leaders as well as in the updated guidance and forms
for nominees and parties.
We will continue to keep our scrutiny process
under review and will make further changes if necessary.
Letter from HoLAC to the Chairman, dated
5 November 2007
At the Committee's meeting on the 11 October
you asked for details of how many individuals we have asked further
questions about and how many we have advised against. This was
in relation to individuals who have been nominated for a party-political
peerage over the seven years of the Committee's life.
The Commission has asked further questions of
either Number 10, the political party nominating the individual
or the nominee him or herself, about 10 nominees. We have advised
the Prime Minister against nominations of five individuals.
Letter from HoLAC to the Chairman, dated
28 November 2007
I am writing further to my letter of 5 November.
Before the case of Lord Laidlaw arose, the Commission
had made it clear publicly that it was necessary for anyone appointed
to the Lords to be UK tax resident. It was because of this that
we decided that we should meet Lord Laidlaw and receive his personal
assurance that he would become UK tax resident from a specific
date before his peerage was conferred. We had already discussed
the idea that we would not consider anyone unless they were already
tax resident; the circumstances surrounding Lord Laidlaw's peerage
convinced us that we should move in that direction.
| 
