Peerages should only be awarded to people capable of bringing serious experience to a chamber which badly needs it.
“Could we not have lifted up an amazing female voice?”
That was the response of a former MP to my latest nominations to the House of Lords. It was a revealing question, reflecting widespread misunderstanding, even in Westminster, about what the House of Lords is for.
Some people see a peerage as the highest form of public recognition; like an OBE or a knighthood but with exclusive membership of a club attached. On that view, appointments should be distributed among distinguished people from different professions and backgrounds, as though the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition were arranging the most prestigious honours list in the country with a bit of demographic box-ticking on the side.
That is not the purpose of the House of Lords. We already have an honours system for recognising talent and achievement.
A peerage is different. The Lords is a working legislative chamber. Its members are expected to examine bills, scrutinise ministers, consider amendments and improve legislation. That requires expertise and an understanding of politics and the consequences when Parliament gets things wrong. The House of Lords is a political space, not an apolitical one.
I regularly hear from people who explain that, if they were placed in the Lords, they would then be able to do this or that useful thing. If they need a peerage to make a contribution, they are not the right people for the Lords.
Those appointed should already have demonstrated that they achieved things. They should have shown judgement, courage or practical ability before entering Parliament.
That is the principle behind my three nominations: General Sir Patrick Sanders, David Ross and Professor Swaran Singh. They are very different people, but each has substantial experience of building, leading or understanding important institutions. Each brings knowledge which is directly relevant to the work of Parliament.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, formerly Chief of the General Staff, has served at the highest level of the British Army and has direct experience of the demands placed upon our Armed Forces.
When the world is becoming more dangerous and Labour are putting our national security at risk, Parliament needs people with first-hand military knowledge. Legislation affecting defence, national security and the lives of those who serve should not be considered only by professional politicians and civil servants.
David Ross is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who has spent his career creating institutions. He co-founded Carphone Warehouse, built a major British business, and went on to sponsor and chair the David Ross Education Trust. He founded the Nevill Holt Festival and served as Chairman of the National Portrait Gallery.
Parliament has no shortage of people who can describe what they would like businesses and schools to do. It has very few who have actually built them.
Professor Swaran Singh is Professor of Social and Community Psychiatry, a consultant psychiatrist in the NHS and a former Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. His career combines academic research, frontline medical practice and public service.
For many years, I have been struck by cases in which people with known and serious mental health problems have gone on to commit horrific crimes. The Nottingham murders and the Southport killings are just two examples.
Too often, bureaucratic systems become preoccupied with metrics and targets while apparently obvious dangers were not addressed. These bodies lose sight of their fundamental purpose, which is to protect the public and deal properly with those who are seriously unwell (or as we used to say, criminally insane). Professor Singh’s research helped me understand how parts of that system were going wrong.
This is the kind of expertise the Lords needs: not simply people who can identify a problem and demand that government do more, but people who understand why systems fail and can devise practical solutions.
These nominations build on the appointments I made previously. Amanda Spielman, Toby Young, Sharron Davies, Simon Heffer and Nigel Biggar have all demonstrated a willingness to defend Conservative principles and make Conservative arguments, often when doing so was unfashionable and personally costly. They join many brilliant men and women already on the Conservative benches.
The political balance of the Lords is moving leftwards. Labour’s appointments have drawn heavily from the third sector and the political class. The removal of hereditary peers has removed many who provided a different perspective.
The House of Lords has too often been treated as a reward, a favour or a means of compensating someone for losing a seat in the Commons.
This week provided a useful illustration. I decided that a Conservative peer, appointed after serving as a Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, should not resume the party whip. This was presented as an ideological purge. It was nothing of the sort. I want diversity of thought on the Conservative benches, and neither disagreement nor internal debate troubles me.
However, a political party cannot function when a member declines to co-operate with his whips, makes only a modest contribution if any to the work of the House. Complaints about his conduct came from every part of the party. A peerage may confer independence of judgement, but it does not abolish basic standards of behaviour.
There are already too many members of the Lords who do little work. The chamber should not become a comfortable resting place for former politicians or a collection of people to whom prime ministers feel indebted.
The Lords is weakened when its composition is altered with no regard to its purpose. I am very clear about what the institution is for. It is there to scrutinise and revise legislation, to bring knowledge into Parliament which the Commons may lack, and to provide independence from the pressures of electoral politics. My appointments are made with those purposes in mind.
Many who seek peerages should actually be trying to enter the House of Commons.
The Commons needs great people. For those who wish to make the greatest political change, the Commons is usually the proper place. The Lords should not be seen as a more convenient route into politics for those who want to avoid the electorate.
That is why our search for strong Conservative candidates in the Commons and our appointments to the Lords are part of the same task. We need people who are intelligent, competent, persuasive and prepared to work hard. We need conviction, but also the experience and judgement required to turn conviction into effective action. If this is you, please get in touch.
David Ross, General Sir Patrick Sanders and Professor Swaran Singh have already demonstrated their ability in business, education, culture, defence, medicine and public service. They will bring serious experience to a chamber which badly needs it.
Whether it is the Commons or the Lords, we need people who have the experience, capabilities and Conservative beliefs that will enable us to getting Britain working again. That is why I nominated them.
