RISHI Sunak is reportedly considering a move to block Boris Johnson’s attempt to hand seats in the Lords to close allies such as Nadine Dorries and Alister Jack.
It comes after the disgraced former prime minister looked to name four sitting Conservative MPs on his resignation honours list: Scottish Secretary Jack, former culture secretary Dorries, COP26 president Alok Sharma, and former cabinet minister Nigel Adams.
The move has sparked controversy in Whitehall as MPs cannot also sit in the House of Lords. In order to accept their peerages, the four Tories would need to resign their seats in the Commons, triggering by-elections.
READ MORE: Ian Blackford demands 'baron-in-waiting' Alister Jack is SACKED from the Cabinet
The Guardian reported in July that Johnson’s team was aware of the issues that such nominations would bring.
A source told the paper in the summer: “You can’t announce a peerage and say they won’t kick in for two years [after the next General Election]. Elevating MPs will mean those seats will be freed up to be contested. It will be a very early test for the new leader.”
However, Johnson is said to have asked the MPs nominated for peerages to delay taking them up so the Tories do not have to fight by-elections.
But Lucy Neville-Rolfe (below), a Conservative peer and minister in the Cabinet Office, suggested in the Lords that any precedent for such delays may not be relevant enough to allow Johnson’s plans to go through.
Asked if the UK Government had “any plans to recommend the conferring of deferred peerages on sitting Members of Parliament”, Neville-Rolfe was non-committal.
She said: “It is a common-law principle that members of the House of Lords cannot sit as MPs and, as such, would need to stand down from the House of Commons. The government are aware that there is some precedent for individuals delaying taking up their seats, but this is limited and largely related to their personal circumstances.”
Neville-Rolfe pointed specifically to Ruth Davidson, the former Scottish Tory leader who was given a life peerage by Johnson in July 2020. However, Davidson deferred joining the Lords until the summer of 2021.
The minister added: “The point I was making right at the beginning, which I will reiterate, is that the government are aware that there are some precedents for individuals delaying taking up their seats. However, this is limited and related, as in this case, to particular circumstances.”
There is no constitutional precedent for deferring a peerage so that MPs can take a seat in the Lords at a later date. To do so, Sunak would need to ask the monarch for special dispensation.
However, Neville-Rolfe suggested in another Lords debate that the Prime Minister had an obligation to avoid bringing the King into party politics.
“[Sunak] has constitutional responsibilities in relation to recommendations made to the sovereign – in particular, to ensure that the sovereign is not himself drawn into controversy,” she said.
READ MORE: SNP urge members to 'take to the streets' on Judgment Day in historic move for party
The Times reported that the suggestion behind Neville-Rolfe’s statements was that the government could block Johnson’s nominations, although Downing Street declined to comment.
Sunak is stuck between constitutional precedents, which say both that he should approve Johnson’s resignation honours nominations, and decline to allow the deferral of peerages – or ask the King to do so.
The House of Lords Appointment Commission is said to be vetting Johnson’s peerage nominations, which also include Ross Kempsell, a close friend of his wife Carrie. However, Sunak will have the final say over peerages, with the commission’s role being advisory.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel