Good morning, colleagues. We are continuing our exploration of propriety, ethics and the wider standards landscape operating currently, and we are delighted to be joined by this week’s witness, Baroness Ruth Deech, who was appointed in October 2023 as Chair of the House of Lords Appointment Commission. Lady Deech, you are welcome; thank you for finding the time to see us. We all know and understand why standards in public life are important, we all know and understand the purpose of an effective standards system, and we all readily agree on the continued relevance of the Nolan principles in public life. You have nodded to that, so I need not detain you by explaining why motherhood and apple pie are good things. What the Committee would be interested to hear is your frank assessment of the current standards system in the UK, both from the point of view of politicians and the general public.

Years ago, I had a discussion about trust with my colleague, the philosopher Baroness O’Neill, which is very aligned with this. There is, as I am sure you all know, a considerable lack of trust among the population in regard not only to politicians, but to journalists, the police, and so on. There really is a crisis of trust. It is not that we do not have a decent standards system; we do. We have a complicated but comprehensive standards system. Nevertheless, there is a public failure of trust. I put that down to the public not being able to see that standards are actually enforced or indeed seeing that there is a failure in enforcing standards. I also think it would be good for us all if the Nolan Principles were more widely known. As it stands, we have a complicated network of ethics and propriety committees. It would be difficult for a member of the public to access them and weigh them up; a bit more transparency and simplicity would help. Nevertheless, every time someone in one part of the working community breaches trust and breaches the standards, it damages us all. Most importantly, it damages the politicians, those of us gathered around this table. We do have an effective system, but it may be lacking in enforceability. It may be that some members of the political body, the journalistic body, the police, and so on, are not living up to those standards, and that gets a great deal of publicity—more today than it used to years ago.

On that issue of trust, we live in what is described as a post-truth age. Conspiracy theorists abound, and populist, anti-establishment narratives take root. Do you detect that the public want to have trust, and that transparency would help in that? Or have we almost gone beyond that and are just firefighting to maintain some semblance of dignity and standards in public office?

There is some schizophrenia here. I am sure the public want trust because whenever there is a very obvious breach, you can see that they are upset. At the same time, everybody, including myself, is using social media; it is all too easy to fall into a black hole of conspiracy theories, and yet people are reluctant to give it up. Just this morning, I noted that Australia is banning social media for people under 16, and there is an outcry. I do not know whether that would go down well here—some people say yes, some say no—but there is definitely a problem with young people relying more on social media than on actual facts. When I was teaching, I always used to say to my pupils, “You really must read a serious newspaper every day because that will tell you more about what is going on than anything you see on social media.” Maybe I am just a voice crying in the wilderness, but I am quite sure that the public still value trust, especially in we politicians round this table, and everyone else who plays an important part in our lives. Whether it is the bus drivers we trust as we get on a bus, or the pilots, or the bin men emptying our bins, or doctors, if we do not have trust—if they do not live up to standards—we turn into a dysfunctional society. It is very important, and social media is not helping.

Do you think there is more that the political class/establishment can or could do to better explain that politicians and people in senior roles in public leadership are not one step away from canonisation, but are drawn from the rank and file of citizenry across the country? We are all susceptible to foibles, failures, weaknesses, and so on. We are not plaster-footed saints. Do you think we make a rod for our own back as a political class by purporting to be superhuman when, in actual fact, we are just humans trying to do a rather peculiar job in trying and testing circumstances?

It is a trite observation that Governments, especially when they are in Opposition, promise more than they can deliver. But I would look to the resulting deliberations of this Committee. I know that you have interviewed Sir William Shawcross and others about public appointments, which is very interesting and very important. I hope that your report will be nuanced, explaining how politicians should not be too arrogant and should be more understanding of what trust is and how important it is to the running of our country; and that they should explain more and probably apologise more quickly. Many of the failings—"scandals” is too extreme a word—of the last few years have been made worse by politicians or others trying to be defensive and not apologising right away. The important thing is to apologise.

Good morning. My question relates to the Ethics and Integrity Commission; as you will know, the current Government made a commitment prior to the last election to set this up and replace the Committee on Standards in Public Life. What is your view on that change?

My own commission, HOLAC, is not actually a member of that commission; it is part of the network that sits under that commission, where we meet and discuss matters of common interest. It is not a bad thing, but I am not sure how much good it can do because the various bodies that are members of the EIC or are represented there have very different remits in relation to ethics, propriety, standards and all the other words that are used in that context. If it showed more of its workings to the public, and possibly if it embraced a couple more standards bodies, that would help explain to the public what is going on. It is very complicated at the moment. I would certainly welcome an organogram showing who is playing what part in the whole network of standards and ethics that encompasses our public life. I am sure many others would also. What I have enjoyed about it is the therapy of sitting down with others who have similar issues and giving each other support, guidance, and information. You realise that perhaps they have the same problems that you do. But whether it would be effective in changing things, I do not know. I have a good friend, the lawyer John Bowers, who wrote a book called “Downward Spiral.” It is about, in his view, the failure of standards in the last Government. I keep saying to him, “John, get ready for the second edition.” Will things be any better? We do not know, but certainly having an ethics commission has demonstrated that the Government take the issue very seriously.

The EIC, as I understand it, has a much more formal role in terms of co-ordinating all these different bodies. Is that not a step in the right direction?

Yes, the creation of the EIC is a step in the right direction, and the fact that we who chair the various bodies can meet together is also a step in the right direction. However, perhaps what it needs to do is not just to explore guidance and codes, but to look at actual cases. It might be useful if the EIC looked at cases that have arisen in the last few months or even the last few years—maybe cases to do with payments that should not have been made—and said, “How should we have tackled this? Which body should have tackled this? Which area of the published guidance did this fall under?” At the moment, because of its origins, the EIC is concentrated on guidance, codes and standards. Speaking as a lawyer, it would be nice to see it consider a hypothetical case, or even an actual case, and say, “Which code, which guidance would have affected this? Which part of the Nolan Principles were offended?” In fact, you could say that it is more important just for everyone to observe the Nolan Principles rather than have very detailed codes of guidance. If everyone was imbued with the Nolan Principles, life would be a lot easier.

You mentioned that there are a lot of different bodies that operate within this space just now. Some are part of the EIC structure, and others are outside of it. Are there any bodies not currently in the formal structure that you think should be being brought into it?

Yes, maybe the Honours Committee should be brought in; there could be someone at the top who represents the whole network of honours committees. It is a bit like public appointments. Although I have not explored it in detail, I believe the National Audit Office wanted to be part of that network. Maybe the Judicial Appointments Commission could also be included, because it is in every way just as important as the body I represent. It chooses people who judge, and we choose people who legislate.

In terms of the office that you hold, how do you envisage that relationship with EIC? Is it clear, or does it need to be refined a little?

It is not clear, but it is understood. We are like a branch of that whole network because we have a very specific, quite narrow remit. I do not see the EIC ever being able to tell HOLAC what to do, because we have a different remit and a relationship with No. 10. That is not to say that discussions are not useful, nor that I do not appreciate its input—I certainly do—but we are rather different from the others. We are standalone, we are tangential.

What role do you think the EIC should have in terms of making appointments to the House of Lords?

None at all. We have a specific remit based on the White Paper of 1999, and that is what we follow. We decide whether someone should or should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and I do not see the EIC having a role in that. Obviously I appreciate, and I am sure the whole commission appreciates, the work that it does, but it has not so far expressed any views about what we do—not to my knowledge, anyway.

If you fast forward the clock five or 10 years and look at the EIC, how would you measure success or failure?

Of the EIC in the future?

Yes.

One would hope that there was a much broader understanding and sensitivity among politicians about what ethics mean in its case. One would hope that there were far fewer cases that infuriate the public about people taking money when they should not, and so on. One hopes that in the future, ethical and propriety considerations will have more publicity and will be built more into political lives. I do not know whether new politicians get mentoring and orientation; you will have to tell me.

If we did, I missed it.

Well, there is a suggestion for you: if new MPs get orientation and mentoring, maybe ethics should be part of it. A compulsory half day or session on ethics would not go amiss, I am sure.

That is helpful, thank you. The Government have said they have a commitment to, “Restore confidence in Government and ensure Ministers are held to the highest standards.” We have touched on this already, but what further reforms or changes do you think might be put in place to achieve that?

Do you mean reforms or changes from the EIC?

I mean in any respect.

Going back to what I said a minute ago, people should be sat down and told what is acceptable and what is not. In particular, there has been a lot of publicity recently about taking gifts, football tickets, pop show tickets and so on. That is just something that has been in the papers recently. I suppose Ministers have to have a self-denying ordinance. If someone is offering them money or tickets for something or other, the default position should be to refuse. Whether they are being required to ask questions or lobby or go to some show, they need to pause and say, “No, I shouldn’t.” For the period that they are in office, they simply have to be hair-shirted and not accept tempting offers. Maybe there is someone that gives them advice; I do not know. If MPs are facing an ethical question, is there someone they can go to and say, “What should I do?” There is a Commissioner for Standards, or someone; they should be of help to MPs who are faced with a quandary.

Lady Deech, in answer to my initial question about trust, you said that people should be told what is acceptable and what is not. Of course, trust and confidence are two sides of the same coin. In relation to the Ministerial Code, obviously the Prime Minister effectively authors or is the custodian of the code; there is an independent adviser, but their advice is not binding on the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is therefore put in the invidious position of effectively having to adjudicate on allegations of wrongdoing against someone they have appointed to be a Minister or member of their Cabinet, and in whom they have personal faith and trust. Given the declining rate of trust in the body politic and all its architecture, is that a sustainable way of dealing with such matters in 2025?

I do not think there is any alternative. In the end, you have to trust the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister will have the last word in appointing the various people who advise him. If he does not choose them, who will?

I am not suggesting that an outsider appoints the Cabinet or Ministers; that is clearly within the purview of the Prime Minister, his Government having received the commission of the sovereign. My question was: is it sustainable in 2025 for any Prime Minister to be judge and jury on somebody they have appointed? Is there enough of a degree of separation? You would not ask a judge to try a case where a member of their family, or a close business confidante, was in the dock.

I have not given this a lot of thought. I can see a case for interposing an ombudsman or a standards commissioner. But who would appoint them? Who would they be? That is why trust is so important. No matter what you may say about sustainability, in the end it all comes down to having trust in the person at the very top of the pyramid: the Prime Minister. That is why it is so important that you politicians, and indeed the electorate, choose the right person. No matter who you put in there, somehow their appointment will be affected or will owe something to the Prime Minister, and he or she is the apex of trust. There is no getting away from that. If in the end, the public do not trust them then they fall, as we have seen.

I am always thinking of future proofing based on past experience. There is a presumption—hitherto, a perfectly natural and normal presumption to have— that any person who climbs to the top of the greasy pole and becomes Prime Minister has, somewhere within their being, a moral compass that allows them to detect right from wrong, acceptable from unacceptable, and an understanding of the need to conform to convention. If an individual has neither of those skills or attributes, the whole system just collapses. There are no guardrails, apart from a presumption that the man or the woman who has the top job is a sound person.

You are right; we have seen something similar, and that is why it is important that the Prime Minister’s closest advisers are people who have that compass, and that he or she is surrounded by them in Cabinet. Again, that is for you politicians to ensure, and indeed the electorate when they vote for people. But our system runs on trust, because we have an unwritten constitution. There are no barriers and guardrails such as there are in the American or French constitution, for example. We do not have a written constitution, and so far we have managed pretty well without it. I do not think we would be able to write one now because there would be so many disagreements about what should be in it.

We are not going down that rabbit hole. It is also a problem if you have a Prime Minister who says, “I know right from wrong, so I don’t need any advisers; my judgment is so perfect, I can take no advice on these matters.”

We are much more conscious of that now, because of what you said. We are much more conscious of that particular failing than we were, say, 30 or 40 years ago.

It would not even have been a consideration 30 or 40 years ago. Frankly, I am not entirely sure it would have been a consideration 20 years ago. Let us turn to Lauren Edwards.

Good morning. You have been chairing HOLAC now for two years. What is your assessment of the role and of the appointments process?

For those who do not know about our work in detail, we do two things. First, we vet, quite narrowly, names put forward by the political parties for peerages, and we consider whether they are in good standing and whether there is anything in their past record that might bring the House of Lords into disrepute. We check whether there are any financial interests, their tax standing, and any criminal record, though one hardly expects there to be a criminal record. This is all set out on our website. The other half of our job is what we were really set up to do. We receive applications from members of the public who want to join the House of Lords. We get hundreds of such applications. Since this system started about 25 years ago, we have had 6,000 or 7,000 such applications. I am sure you have all been involved in making an appointment at one level or another. It is a bit like choosing people for a job; we receive their CVs and references, which are sifted to see if they have the necessary qualities that we require, and in the end, it comes down to interviewing maybe half a dozen applicants. We do a very careful, in-depth interview. We look to see whether they understand how the House of Lords works, whether they have a fine record of past achievements and something to offer in the future, whether they can speak well and understand how the constitution works, and whether they will actually turn up and regard it as a job and not merely an honour. Then we decide who to appoint. Those of you who have been involved in making top-level appointments will know how difficult it is because out of hundreds of outstanding applications at any moment, there are many brilliant people who are completely worthy of having a place in the House of Lords. But we only get two appointments a year, and in fact some years we have not even had two. When I was first appointed, we were able to make six appointments a year. I am sure you will ask me about that later, but it is a bit of a problem.

We can probably talk about the number of appointments allocated now. You referenced the fact that only being allocated two was a problem. Can you elaborate on that for us?

When the new system of Cross Bench peers was set up by Tony Blair 25 years ago, the idea was that they would form an independent sector in the House of Lords, bringing expertise from their past life and an independent point of view. There are about 180 people on the Cross Benches, representing a wide range of interesting specialisms and expertise, and there is no telling what way we will vote. We do not take a Whip. When there is something to vote about, we do not just say, “Oh, we’re doing what we’re told. We’re going down this lobby or that lobby.” We think to ourselves which way we are going to vote. We are independent minded with a number of specialisms. Now, we are going to lose about 30 people because they are hereditary peers, which will deplete our number considerably. I think we need to keep our number up to scratch; everyone who has ever discussed reforming the House of Lords has said that the Cross Benchers should be about 20%. So we will be losing 30, and I hope that we can fill that number. As I said, we have been reduced down to two allocations a year. Another thing you may want to save for later is the issue of the so-called Prime Minister’s exceptions, in which the Prime Minister can make appointments to the Cross Benches of his or her own motion. I can talk about that now or later if you want.

Shall we do it now? We might as well.

Going back 20 or 25 years, there has been a convention that in the course of one Parliament—let us say five years—the Prime Minister can make 10 exception appointments. Those used to be for exceptional public servants, such as the Cabinet Secretaries Sir Robin Butler and Lord Armstrong. That definition has expanded to include people who offer exceptional public service; it is too vague, because I would hope that nearly everyone appointed to the House of Lords has in the past offered public service. So in effect, the Prime Minister—this one has already made four or five such appointments—is taking on himself or herself the right to fill up the Cross Benches with people who he or she chooses. That dilutes the special responsibility we have to choose exceptional members of the public, so I am worried about Prime Ministerial exceptions. I am not saying those chosen are not good people, but they are not people who have been through the process that we carry out, and in recent years, they have been overwhelmingly civil servants. There is nothing wrong with civil servants; they are wonderful people—some of my best friends are civil servants—but the Cross Bench is perhaps disproportionately full of retired civil servants, whereas we need room for people with all sorts of different expertise, such as in engineering, AI, medicine, nursing, media and all sorts of things. I had hoped to have an MOU in relation to Prime Ministerial exceptions, but that has not happened. We have had a letter about it, but that did not result from any conversations with us.

Have those conversations stalled with the Government?

There was going to be an MOU and a discussion, but nothing happened. We then got a letter from the Prime Minister saying what they intended to do.

What was that?

We still have Prime Ministerial exception appointments. I can well understand that the Prime Minister may want to put someone in, but we need to have some safeguards around that, especially if we are only making two appointments a year. In the old days, we made six and the Prime Minister could appoint 10, so over the course of one Parliament you might expect 30 Cross Bench appointments and 10 exceptions. But now we might only have 10 exception appointments and 10 Cross Bench appointments.

Did that letter detail any action the Government would be taking, or was it a letter indicating that it was the end of the conversation?

No discussions have been offered to me. I have nothing against the exception; some have been most interesting, wonderful people such as Baroness Cass, for example. But one must not lose sight of why the Cross Bench, or people’s peers as they used to be called, were set up and the wide range of expertise among the brilliant people who are applying to us. As I said, we are sifting through applications from hundreds of people who we could very usefully bring into the House of Lords, especially with 90 vacancies coming about from the removal of the hereditary peers.

Do you have any concerns about the Prime Minister’s exceptions being used for patronage rather than for people who are going to bring that expertise to the Second Chamber?

I would not want it to be thought personal at all, but with the removal of the hereditary peers, the entire House of Lords is going to be a creature of patronage, except for our two a year and the bishops.

In terms of your power to veto, my understanding is that you can ask a party to reconsider a nomination and you can provide advice to the Prime Minister, but that advice remains confidential; therefore, you have no veto powers. Is that something that you would like, or seek, to have? Or are you content with those arrangements as they currently sit?

So far, it has worked. On the very rare occasions when we have offered the Prime Minister advice during my time in office, it has been accepted. So if it works, that is fine. I have occasionally wondered if we should be put on a statutory basis, but that has not been a popular opinion. The House of Lords has spent a long time debating the removal of the hereditary peers and what is coming, and the notion of putting us on a statutory basis did not go down very well. I am sure that no Prime Minister would ever accept that in a last resort, his or her use of the royal prerogative to appoint or not appoint a peer would be taken away. There might be something to be said for looking at the arrangement that applies to the Judicial Appointments Commission, where the Judicial Appointments Commission puts forward a name to be a judge and if the Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor does not like it, it is sent back again. I cannot recall the detail, but it is something like a ping-pong arrangement. There might be something to be said for that. But so far in my experience, and just on a conventional basis, it has been all right.

Looking forward, what will be the tasks and challenges for you in the remainder of your term?

I hope we will get more than two allocations a year. When all the hereditary peers are removed—there has been some talk of removing the over-80s as well—that will leave a lot of gaps. I feel that we should be putting forward the case for allowing us to have more than just two appointments a year. I am very pleased that the Government have listened to our representations and that political parties now give citations for people who are being appointed to the House of Lords. That is really very useful, because it helps the secretariat to do their vetting and it explains to other peers and the public why this particular person is being appointed. A year or two ago, someone would be appointed, and the peers would say, “Who is this? Why has this particular charity person or banker or whoever been chosen?” We now have a much clearer idea of why that person is being appointed, and I hope we can build on that and maybe get even longer citations. But most of all, I hope we can get more Cross Benchers appointed and have more transparency so that we can do a very thorough vetting, and maybe we can have more of a public profile. I used to say we should publicise the Cross Bench system more, but given the hundreds of people who apply—even as we are speaking, more people will be applying—there certainly is publicity already. Of course, if too many people apply, then there is too much disappointment.

Just a final question: you said you would like more than two for your nomination process for Cross Benchers. Do you have a particular figure in mind?

I like to think that we could gradually fill the 30 hereditaries that we are losing. The other day, I checked out the expertise of those hereditary Cross Benchers, and I was agreeably surprised. I made a little note of the expertise we are losing and it ranges from art to agriculture, Africa, the police, the Army, photography, design and technology, teaching, judges, a vet, Scotland, farming, chartered surveying, international development, botany, music, prisons, nuclear energy, engineering and so on. So you can see what we are losing, and those are the gaps we would like to fill.

I wanted to come in on your raising of the question of a veto. Under the previous Government, there was the incredibly concerning case of a rogue Prime Minister overriding the advice of the security services to appoint a peer who had been identified as a risk. The lack of a veto at that point meant that the appointment could not be stopped. Do you not see the risk of a similar incident occurring? And just to double-check, is there no recommendation and no expectation that a veto would allow us to protect our national security from individuals who are acting against our interest?

So far, when we have expressed concerns, No. 10 has listened. Of course, HOLAC would be reluctant to say that a person should not be appointed, but if, having very carefully considered the situation, we said that and the Government still went ahead, we would write to this Committee. The matter would become public, and that would be very bad for the person nominated because they would spend the rest of their political lives being labelled with that veto. It would also be bad for the Prime Minister, because he or she would be seen to have appointed someone about whom there were serious concerns. And, of course, it would be bad for HOLAC, because our advice would have been overridden. I keep saying this when I get the chance, and I hope that it works. But in the end, the Prime Minister has the prerogative.

To come back on that point, would not the prospect of a veto being given based on, in this example, security services’ advice, dissuade a Prime Minister from taking that course of action in the first place? We can point directly to an example where this occurred and that check did not happen. Ultimately, in my view, that security risk is still occurring.

I am not privy to any of that. If there was a security risk, based on past experience, I am sure that No. 10 would take that on board and hopefully not nominate that person. But I do not have any details about that particular example; I do not know about it.

It was quite high profile.

I only know what I read in the press, but I was not privy to any of that.

I am going to turn to Sam Carling in a minute. I just want to clarify one thing. Lady Deech, in relation to the removal of the hereditaries—we will come on to that in a moment or so—you have said that their removal creates vacancies and that their removal creates lots of gaps. I can see how one could use the terms “gaps” and “vacancies” if there was a quota, such as that the Cross Benchers have to be 20% or 25% or whatever, and the Opposition have to make up 40% of the House, or whatever it may happen to be, but that is not how the House of Lords is configured. There is going to be a removal, but do you see their removal as creating vacancies or is it just an, albeit small, opportunity to reduce what is actually quite an inflated house in terms of potential attendees on a daily basis?

You have highlighted the nub of the problem. I am sure everyone would like to see the numbers reduced, whoever they are, by 90, or indeed by more than that. At the same time, one has to be careful not to lose particular expertise. After all, the role of the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation and bring their knowledge and experience to bear on that. Perhaps I would say, because I am a Cross Bencher, that the Cross Benchers are pre-eminent in that. They have a wide range of expertise and are entirely independent minded. So what I am saying, of course, is entirely predictable, which is that I very much hope that the Cross Benchers can retain their 20% share of the House of Lords, and that maybe the political parties would seize the opportunity to pull back. I have read in the press that the Government want to be sure that they have enough people in the House of Lords to pass their legislation, which is wholly understandable. But if you do the maths and add up the 26 bishops, the Cross Benchers—even depleted by 30—the Opposition group, the Lib Dems, and the independents, I do not think any Government could ever be sure of being able to push legislation through the House of Lords by having a simple majority. The maths does not work, and again, because I am a Cross Bencher, that is rather good. It is right that when legislation goes through the Commons and there is a big majority in favour of the Government, as there is now, it should get scrutiny in the House of Lords, and of course the House of Lords Members understand the Parliament Acts. The House of Lords understands the commitments in the manifesto. The House of Lords understands that in the last resort, having gone forwards and backwards, the House of Commons, the elected body, is supreme. But I cannot see anything wrong with any Government having a bit of a battle in the House of Lords to get their legislation through, especially with the Cross Benchers there not having a tie to any party and being able to vote as they see fit without any fear of a Whip or being told off for not voting in a particular way. That is a healthy part of our constitution, although I would like to see the numbers overall reduced, for sure.

Would you, pro tem, advocate for an exceptional round of appointments to the Cross Benches to try to replicate some—not all, but some—expertise that you have identified as a way of plugging skills gaps?

Or new expertise, because new things come around all the time. I should add that virtually everything I have said so far is in my personal capacity. The Commission has not discussed this. I am telling you what I think, for right or wrong.

We are grateful to you for that.

I would like to see the Cross Benchers being able to fill up a bit, because if you only saw the amazing offers that we have had from members of the public and their brilliant CVs in all sorts of fields, there are so many people who really would add lustre and independence to the House of Lords. Given that for the past 10 years or more we have only had two appointments a year, it would be nice to fill up a bit more—it really would—and they would be people who would bring credit to our system.

Lustre and credit probably were warm words for the Government, but no Government ever warms to independence, do they? They do not like that.

I cannot tell, because I cannot compare people in the past to people in the present. All I can say is that it is very helpful to have citations, and for the parties to know that we are able to do a more thorough vetting because of those citations, but I cannot give an opinion on the quality because I do not know. You just cannot compare one cohort with another; it is apples and pears. I do not know who was turned down and so on in the past, so I am afraid I cannot answer that one.

Again, I am sorry to disappoint you. I really do not know how many were turned down in the past. I am guessing it is a very small number, but I really do not know, and all that kind of information is confidential. I am sorry, I cannot help you there. I expect they did turn down a few, but I just do not know.

Again, I cannot talk about individual cases, and I do not know how it was in the past, but I would suggest that when people are turned down or a warning is given, it will be for some financial reason or because there has been an important breach of the Nolan principles. Maybe investigation is ongoing and has not yet been completed.

I have been sort of ticked off for suggesting that I should be so arrogant as to scrutinise the political suitability of nominations, and that is absolutely true. There is no way that HOLAC could ever give an opinion on the political suitability of political nominations, because the political views that people put forward are for the parties to determine. But I would not see anything wrong with applying the same criteria—non-political suitability has a different meaning—to all nominations. After all, the White Paper of 1999, which set us up, actually says the Commission should consider the suitability of all nominations to the House of Lords, including bishops, even. I cannot see anything wrong with applying the Nolan principles to all who are nominated by the political parties—and maybe even the criteria that we apply to people who are members of the public and wish to join, like understanding the constitution, understanding how Bills work, having the time, speaking independently and authoritatively, and so on, but I am not very optimistic about that happening. The political parties guard their right. The Prime Minister guards his or her right to appoint, and I am sure that is the case. The answer to your question is yes, in an ideal world, but I would not for a moment begin to say that the Commission could judge political suitability.

No, not currently. I think I may have raised it once at an informal meeting with Members of the last Government, but it did not go down very well.

Yes, given the chance, I would, though I am not terribly optimistic about it getting anywhere. The House of Lords itself was not very keen on this notion of vetting suitability. I did not participate, but I would have said, “No, I don’t mean political suitability. I mean suitability in a broader sense.”

Could I just ask something? Quite properly, you do not want to be drawn upon in detail about, for example, the case that Mr Taylor referenced of somebody not quite passing muster with the security services but the then Prime Minister proceeding. You mentioned in answer to an earlier question about whether we, as Members of Parliament, were given induction and so on and so forth. Surely, one must hope that your predecessor sat you down and said, “Now look, these are some of the pitfalls, tiger traps, and things which do not necessarily cloak the process with glory. These are the things to really look out for, if for no other reason than to hear the alarm bells on subsequent occasions and be robust in approach.” Can you just assure us about that? I am trying to find a way to ask this that does not sound cheeky. You did not take up this role coming out of having been cryogenically frozen and not aware of anything that was going on around you while you were also a member of the House of Lords, did you?

I have had the most helpful conversations and support from Lord Jay, Lord Kakkar, Lord Bew, who have been in the post, and of course the secretariat. I have had a great deal of help and support from them, and I have pretty clear ideas in my own mind as to what would not be suitable—I should not use the word suitable—an acceptable appointment. I thrashed that out with the other members of the Commission, and, as I said, I have spoken and continue to speak to my predecessors to get their feelings. So, I feel supported and informed in that sense.

Obviously, as you know, we will write a report with some observations and recommendations, and so on. Do you see any merit in MI5, MI6, GCHQ, the National Crime Agency or whatever saying “Look, this person is in the running for a red robe and a bit of ermine, but they are not appropriate people to serve in the UK Parliament, because we know stuff about them which is not in the public domain and never will be.” Their opinion would have to be in some way checked to prove it is bona fide and that they are not simply being malicious, but should they have an upper hand in a sort of veto process?

I really do not know. I have not come across that situation.

I am not saying that you have. I am asking hypothetically what happens if our security services say, “Look, this is a bad egg. They may have given the absolute impression of being a frankly good person, given a lot of money to charity, are kind to their old mum, look after three-legged labradors in their spare time, and so on, but by golly, this is the stuff that they do, or have done.”

I would imagine that those representations, if they were made, would go to the Prime Minister or the political party that has nominated that person before it comes to us, and I expect our secretariat would maybe hear about that, but I do not know.

We understand how it works at present.

Yes.

The issue we are trying to nail here is that that is all fine and dandy, but a Prime Minister can say, “Well, thank you very much indeed for your advice. I’m not bound by it. I’m going to crack on.” Our question is: in the narrow arena of national security, should a Prime Minister, in theory, be able to crack on with an appointment?

No. It is like the other things that might be wrong, in our view, about a candidate. I know what I have read in the newspapers, and I imagine we would not support a candidate were such matters brought to our attention. Then we would get back to this difficult issue where we say no, and the Prime Minister says yes. As I said before, we would write to you, and there would be bad reputation all round in such a situation. As I said, I have read in the newspapers that that was the situation, but that was not in my time.

I am just trying to establish whether a circumstance which, back in the day when the rules were written, was possibly not envisaged as being at all conscionable, could suddenly become a reality, and the rules would be effectively mute on the issue because it is a circumstance which was not envisaged when the guidance and the guardrails were written and created. Knowing what we know now, and knowing how the world has changed, and so on, would there be a desirability that in that narrow remit of a negative impact or influence on national security, a Prime Minister should not be able to override the advice or the assessment through the process which had been contributed to by MI5 or MI6?

For that, you would need a statute, because under our current—

There would be a method to achieve it. I am merely asking, in principle, would there be a desirability for it? Forget the route by which we arrive at it. In terms of an end destination, is it desirable?

Speaking for myself, if there was a security issue about a Member of Parliament or a civil servant, of course it is a case for worry and one would not want to employ them; it might even be a criminal activity. But under our current constitution, the Prime Minister could go ahead, and if you do not want that to happen, you need a statute.

I am asking you, in your opinion, do you think it would be desirable to have that statute to achieve that aim? Naming no names.

In the most theoretical way, yes, but I have been saying for years that the Prime Minister, with a royal prerogative, can in the end appoint anyone he or she chooses, and once you start restricting that, there would then be a case for more restrictions.

The royal prerogative is not an absolute, is it? There is a presumption that the prerogative will be used within acceptable guardrails. Otherwise, we are back to absolute monarchy, or the rights of an absolute monarch being exercised by their Prime Minister.

You would need a statute. It is only a statute that could curb it.

Yes.

Of course, I would not want someone who was a security risk to be round this table or in the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

So it merits considered examination?

I do not think you would get very far, because any such statute would be quite a thunderbolt in the constitutional landscape.

I am sure somebody said to Christopher Columbus, “I don’t think you’ll get very far,” and then he discovered the Americas, so I always much prefer to travel optimistically and explore the edges of the envelope.

It is for you to push it, not me.

No, no, because we are taking expert evidence in this inquiry. My hunch is that your answer is yes, but just for the record, a simple yes or no answer would be grand. Is there a desirability in articulating and advocating for such a statute in order to provide an additional safeguard for appointments to the House of Lords if there are questions regarding the impact on national security?

I have not given this thought, really, until very recently. I can see all sorts of theoretical and legal difficulties. All I can say is that, in general, one would not want someone who is a security risk to be functioning at any level of our Government.

That is a given. But at the moment, if a Prime Minister says, “Thank you very much, MI5, thank you very much, MI6, I’ve received your advice, and I’m ignoring it,” there is nothing anybody can do. Is that correct?

You have said that the royal prerogative is not absolute. I suppose the King could say no.

Looking back on the report published in October 2023 following the recommending of your appointment, and in your evidence it says, “I would search for a way to avoid the situation where a PM insists on an appointment thought to be unsuitable by HOLAC.” It sounds like you have very much stopped that search and are perfectly happy with that situation. Is that correct?

I would not stop searching. All I am saying is that in the two years of my tenure, when we have made representations, they have been accepted by No. 10, although it is very rare.

So you feel you have resolved that issue?

It has not been as much of a problem as I think it may have been for my predecessors, but obviously I am open to discussions. It may be that, if there are going to be more appointments coming, there may be a need for more discussions.

I hope you would take away from this session that we are concerned that that has not happened, and I would hope that in the report we can reflect that in no uncertain terms. There seems to be a real gap there, but to be fair, you go on in your evidence to talk about the statutory basis that that may require. In terms of that need, are you able to reflect any more on the necessity or the urgency to avoid some examples that we have given where that has not happened in the past, and attempting to use past experiences to inform future behaviour—it may be a wild concept to some of us that we might want to do that before that happens again?

To be fair, the only example that has come up has been security, and I have not had to face that one. It is difficult. We can certainly have conversations with No. 10, but no two cases are the same. Different Prime Ministers and different parties have different views as to who they want to put forward. It would be very difficult to generalise beyond what we have set out really quite fully on our website about the qualities and criteria that are applied both to members of the public who apply and to political nominations. All we can say—indeed, I raised it with No. 10 a while ago—is that the Nolan principles must not be forgotten, and they would understand that. I do not think you could have a list of things that make for a bad nomination, because there would always be something new. You have to rely on good relations and good discussions at a lower level and then a higher level. I have spoken to people at No. 10, both under the last Government and this one, and so far, it is understood and all has been okay. Anything might come up in the future; I am not sure that we can be very specific in spelling that out. We have relatively good understanding with those who put forward nominations, and the more I talk to you, and when your report comes out, the more the political parties will understand the sensitivities surrounding nominations to the House of Lords.

I would just like to come back again. We are in unprecedented times. We have various concerns over foreign influence on our politics. Both financially and individually, we have an incredibly challenging international political environment. We are up to three years away from the next general election, where we may see a huge shift in the attitudes and the make-up of the Prime Minister who may be appointing people to positions in the Lords. I would be really very concerned if the issues around security risks relating to appointments to our law-making chamber were not resolved in that time. I would be really uneasy if more thought was not given to how we protect against that and how HOLAC protects against that. I would very gently encourage you to search for measures in a much more meaningful way to avoid that, and, in any discussions you have with the Prime Minister or the Government, I would urge you to impress upon them the need to resolve that before it is too late.

May I gently put it back to you that we are not even a statutory body? We are based on a White Paper. If it is thought that security is a risk, it is for you legislators to pass a statute saying exactly that. Whether it is security or anything else, if we make severe representations to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister does not accept them, in the last resort there is nothing we can do except write to you. If you are concerned about security, which I absolutely understand, then you have to pass a statute. I cannot do that. You can.

That is a point well made. I think we are all actually in violent agreement, and not quite realising it, on this issue that something needs to be done. Again, this is my personal view on the Ministerial Code: it all works. While we all say that the principle of the good chap went with the bowler hat and the furled umbrella, there is still quite a lot of our stuff that just relies upon people knowing where the boundaries and margins are and not wanting to stray over them. If the rogue just goes, “Oh, I’m a disrupter and I am not hidebound by all these things,” the whole house of cards collapses, and there is precious little anybody in your House or our House could do about it.

My esteemed colleague Lord Hennessy, one of the many brilliant people in the Cross Bench, is the one who talked about “good chaps” government.

Yes, exactly. And chappesses, of course.

We have 30% chappesses in the House of Lords. I checked the percentage just the other day. The House of Lords is 30% women.

That is improving, but it should and could be better.

Good morning, Baroness Deech. I believe, in response to the questions from Sam Carling, you welcomed the requirement that has been introduced for political parties to provide a citation as to why a person is being put forward for appointment. It appears to be a reasonably limited reform, but what purpose do you think is served by this reform, and do you think it is achieving that purpose successfully?

I am very pleased that the Government listened to us on that because, as I said, formerly one would get just a couple of lines about a person, so the longer the citation, the better. It would be good for the history books to know why a certain person was appointed to the House of Lords. It assists the secretariat in vetting and helps that person fit into their slot in the House of Lords all the quicker, because we now know what they have done and who they are. The longer the better; I welcome that. That is a very good move.

You say longer the better. It is up to 150 words; is that really adequate in terms of the length of a citation? It seems extraordinarily short for a citation for someone to become a member of the upper House.

It compares very favourably with the two lines that one gets at present.

That is true; I accept that.

Indeed, by all means, if the parties will give us a longer citation, which I am sure they can, that would be even better.

HOLAC is charged with collecting citations, and the guidance says they will be published on the Government’s website, gov.uk, but there is no clear place on your website where these citations can be found. Should there be?

It is not for HOLAC to publish the citations on its own website, because we have not written them, and it might give the wrong impression. I certainly think it is for the parties to publish those citations on their own websites, or somewhere more accessible if they wish to.

They should also be published on the Government’s website. Do you agree with that?

Yes. I am all in favour of that publicity. It is very useful.

Would it be reasonable to highlight that link for the sake of transparency on the HOLAC website?

I will take that back and ask the secretariat. On the face of it, it seems a good idea.

I think that in response to Sam’s question, you said it was difficult for you to assess whether there had been a change in the candidates brought forward for nomination as a result of this process. Do you think it would be a useful exercise for HOLAC to undertake to ask whether it is actually making a difference to the candidates?

It is very difficult. I might say to you, “Compare the quality of this make-up of PACAC with the previous make-up of PACAC.”

We are much better. Truly, head and shoulders does not even begin to describe it

That is very clear.

Well, there you are. If you have a list of 25 interesting and distinguished people, it is apples and pears comparing them with 25 people who were nominated a few years ago.

You also mentioned that you felt that the purpose of citations, at least partly, should be to help people fit in quickly in the House of Lords.

Yes.

But are there not important issues of transparency that citations should fulfil as well? That should be clear when political parties are bringing forward a candidate.

Yes. We sit there when someone arrives in their red robes, and we look at the paper in front of us telling us who they are. When you know their back history, you are much quicker at deciding that so-and-so might be an ally on this topic or an expert on the other topic. So yes, the more we know about them, the better.

There should be issues about public confidence in there as well.

Yes. The public—sometimes even my friends who are probably pretty well-informed—say, “Why is so-and-so in the House of Lords?” It is a great comfort to be able to explain that they have done this, that they have done the other, and that they are a very distinguished person. We have some very distinguished Members on the Cross Benches. For example, I meant to mention Baroness Bull, a dancer who is now in the running to be Lord Speaker. We are all talking about assisted dying; we have Baroness Finlay.

Will it change the Speaker’s procession if she is a dancer? We will have a tango one day, a paso doble and possibly a bossa nova on a Thursday. It could be quite interesting.

I would love to see a paso doble towards the Woolsack.

We all would, surely.

Baroness Deech, HOLAC has now released citations for people prior to the Government’s change in policy following a freedom of information request appeal. Do citations exist for all appointments prior to this recent change?

I do not think they do. It has not been possible to investigate. I hope a historical researcher can dig around, although I think many of the past papers may well have been deleted. But for future historians, I can imagine in 100 years’ time, people might be doing research, let us say, into assisted dying or something like that, and they would want to know who was leading the Opposition and who was in favour. So the more information that we can preserve, the better, but I doubt whether there were citations in the past that are preserved now.

If there were a limited number of citations that were approved, should those be published?

To be honest, you could probably go to Wikipedia and find out who these people were, but I hope that in the future, there will be historical archives recording that.

Finally, the Government have committed to reforming the appointment process. What discussions, Baroness Deech, have you had with the Government about such reforms?

None.

None at all? Are you surprised there have been no discussions with you, given that this is a commitment from the Government?

I have spoken to them about exceptions. As I explained to you, there are too many exception appointments. The Government are busy with legislation and the expulsion of the hereditaries. I imagine that when the hereditaries are no longer with us, the Government might want to talk to us about whether we have any role in filling what are wrongly called gaps, as you said, Chair—but no, we have not had any discussions.

Given that the current Government had a manifesto commitment to reform the appointments process, I might say that I am surprised that these discussions have not taken place directly with you, Baroness Deech, and HOLAC, given the fundamentally important role HOLAC has in that process. Would you hope that, before too long, the Government will embark on discussions with you?

There are two Committees that have been set up in the House of Lords. One is about appointments and the other is about retirement. I am sure that they will be in touch with us in due course. Or indeed, I might get in touch with them—though maybe that is constitutionally difficult. I do not know, but I am sure that will come.

Thank you very much indeed, Baroness Deech.

Lady Deech, you almost gave the answer to quite a lot of our questions at the top of this meeting when you said that Oppositions take a far more robust approach to these things than Governments. That is true, because Prime Ministers being asked to voluntarily give up or constrain rights of appointment, patronage and the like often say, “Let my successor deal with that. I am rather enjoying it all.” That is often the sort of motto that runs through any No. 10 operation, irrespective of incumbent and irrespective of party, is it not?

As I said at my pre-appointment hearing with this Committee two years ago, there had just been an article in one of the Sunday papers about reform of the House of Lords, and a lot of well-known voices had spoken up saying they should be elected and so on. Then, in the very next paragraph, one of those well-known voices said, “Oh, well, I hope I get appointed when I retire.” I think that is still the case.

Turkeys and Christmas.

Once a Government are in power, they realise how useful it is to make ministerial appointments in the House of Lords, and to move people in who are experts or supporters.

Or bed blockers.

I hope there will be reform. The numbers have really got out of hand. We are struggling to sit down, to sign up for debates, and to be heard at questions. Albeit, of course, not everybody turns up, but the numbers are a real problem.

Colleagues, I am looking down our script of questions and, by cross-examination and serendipity, we have covered quite a lot of the territory outstanding. Remaining on my list, however, I have Mr Lamb and Mr Campbell-Savours. The floor, gentlemen, is open to you both.

Chair, I believe we have covered my question already.

It is the same situation for me, Chair. Thank you.

Colleagues, does anybody want to cover off any issues or revisit anything? No. We have obviously been interested in what you have had to say, Lady Deech, and we will give that due consideration when we come to write our reports. We take your point entirely that it is this place that will instigate statute changes to better, if at all, modernise the status quo—let me put it that way—to better reflect times and challenges. Can I thank you very much indeed on behalf of the Committee for your appearance this morning? Can I thank you and your colleagues for all that you do in ensuring that appointments to the House of Lords are as scrupulous and as above board as possible? It is appreciated, and we are grateful to you for discharging that with the skill that you do.

Can I just have a final word?

Of course.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you. I am very proud of the talented people we have in the Cross Benches, and I would not say that I am overwhelmed, but I am very conscious indeed of the important part that HOLAC plays in increasing public confidence in the House of Lords, protecting the reputation of the House of Lords, and getting expert people in there. It is a very heavy responsibility indeed, which my secretariat carries out very well, but I am all too conscious of the problems that you have raised. I assure you that we bear all those things in mind, and we will do our very best to continue that particular remit that we have.

I think the chorus from this Committee would be “All power to your elbow.” Thank you very much indeed.