Vetting

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. Additionally, the Commission has no say on the number of individuals that are nominated by the Prime Minister. 

Its role is 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:

i) the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and

ii) the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.

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.

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.

The political parties provide the Commission with:

• a citation from the party leader giving the reason for the nomination.This should detail the work carried out by the individual for the party that has made the nomination, plus detail of any other public service conducted. 
• a certificate signed by the Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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).

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 organisations including the Electoral Commission, as well as carrying out a media search.

Agency checks and media searches are a snapshot taken at the time of the request. They reflect information held by vetting bodies at that time. Vetting checks are deemed by the Commission to have expired after a period of six months, and therefore vetting advice based on these checks is only valid for that period. 

The Commission recognises that there may be circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, whereby individuals may find it appropriate to defer their entry to the Lords. However, as a general policy position, the Commission expects that the nominees it vets will complete the formalities relating to the conferral of their peerage and their introduction to the House of Lords within a short timeframe following the Commission’s clearance. In circumstances where the announcement of a peerage list or the introduction of a nominee is subsequently delayed for an extended period, it may be appropriate for the Commission to review and update its vetting advice.

If, after carrying out its checks, the Commission considers that it may be unable to support a nominee, the Commission will inform the relevant political party. The party will be given  an opportunity to propose another nominee. This provision is made in order to maintain the total and balance of numbers of political appointments negotiated by the political parties. If the substitute nominee also cannot be supported, the political party loses that slot.

Taking all the evidence into account, the Appointments Commission will formally either advise the Prime Minister that it sees no reason why an appointment should not be made, or draw any concerns to their 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 His Majesty The King. 

However, should a Prime Minister decide to recommend an appointment which the Commission has been unable to support, the Commission will write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to ensure transparency.

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 they had made no financial contribution. This position is outlined in a policy document 

Since the 2010 General Election, the Commission has been asked to vet for propriety individuals upon whom the Prime Minister wishes to confer a peerage in order that they might sit in the House of Lords to take up a ministerial role.

Ministerial appointees are required to make the same declarations about their tax status and donations as are other nominees. Although the Commission recognises that time pressure is often a factor in these cases, it will carry out vetting in the same way as outlined above.