Main navigation

Vetting

The Role of the Appointments Commission

As well as making recommendations for non-party-political peerages, the Prime Minister asks the Commission to vet nominations for peerages - including those of the political parties - for propriety.

The Commission plays no part in assessing the suitability of those nominated by the political parties, which is a matter for the parties themselves.  Its role is simply to advise the Prime Minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee. 

The Commission takes the view that in this context, propriety means: first, the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with particular regard to the public regulatory authorities; and second, the individual should be a credible nominee.  The Commission's main criterion in assessing this is whether the appointment would enhance rather than diminish the workings and the reputation of the House of Lords itself and the appointments system generally.

Information given by the nominee

The Commission requires individuals being proposed for an appointment to the House of Lords to complete a consent form, declaring:

• that they are resident in the UK for tax purposes and accept the requirement to remain so;
• that they are not involved in any roles, positions or activities or have any interests that would conflict with their membership of the House of Lords;
• whether or not they have made any donations, loans or credit arrangements to or with a political party;
• whether they have a financial relationship with any senior party member; and
• that no close family member has a financial involvement with the party or any senior party member.  

Information given by the political parties

The political parties provide the Commission with:

• a citation from the party leader giving the reason for the nomination; and
• a certificate signed by the Chairman confirming whether or not a donation, loan or credit arrangement has been made between the nominee and the party.  If a financial relationship exists, the Chairman will declare the level of the donation and the date that it was made or, with regard to loans and credit arrangements, the amount and terms of the agreement including interest rates and repayment periods.  The Chairman will also confirm that the recommendation is not associated, directly or indirectly, with any contribution to the party, a political fund or senior party members; that nominees are resident in the UK for tax purposes and accept the requirement to remain so; and that no close family members of the nominee have a financial relationship with the party or any senior party member; and
• the nominee's signed consent form (as outlined above)

Propriety checks

All nominees are asked to give their consent to the necessary checks made by the Commission. These include checking with relevant government departments and agencies and other organisation including the Electoral Commission, as well as carrying out a media search.

Taking all the evidence into account, the Appointments Commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it sees no reason why an appointment should not be made, or draw any concerns to his attention.  The Commission does not have a right of veto; it is down to the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to Her Majesty The Queen for appointment.

Donations to a political party

A particular issue arises in relation to nominations by a political party if the individual being nominated has made a donation (or a series of donations), a loan or a credit arrangement to or with a party or a political cause. On the one hand, the Commission believes that nominees should not be prevented from receiving a peerage just because they have made donations or loans.  On the other, the making of a donation or loan to a political party cannot of itself be a reason for a peerage.

Of central concern to the Commission, therefore, is the credibility of individuals who have made significant political donations, loans or credit arrangements.  The Commission believes that the best way of addressing this issue is to reach a view on whether or not the individual could have been a credible nominee if he or she had made no financial contribution.