Downing Street Says » Peers List

Asked how big the published list of peers was compared to the original list that was submitted, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that she was not going to get into details of the process. The composition of the list was as it was shown, and she was not going to give a running commentary on any of the process in making up the list.

Asked how many on the list were donors to the governing party, the PMS said that that information was publicly available.

Asked if the number of Labour peers on this list was equal to the number of Labour peers presented to the earlier list, the PMS said that she thought that was the same question that had been asked earlier. She said again that she was not going to get into any of the processes that made up the list. It was as it was published. We did not comment on individuals or the recommendations that were given to the Prime Minister by the Appointments Commission, as it was done on a confidential basis.

Asked if the Prime Minister had now accepted that he would not be able to get the number of peers through, the PMS replied that the list was as it was published today and the advice of the Appointments Commission as the Prime Minister had said himself was something that he followed.

Asked if working peers were nominated by party leaders, the PMS said that was correct. These were political appointees. Asked what was expected of them, the PMS said that they were to make a regular and substantial contribution to the work of the Upper House. The reason why we had a working peers list was because without working peers lists from time to time, the management of the House of Lords would be weakened. With all large bodies of this nature, they did need to be refreshed from time to time.

Asked if this was an honour, the PMS said it was not, it was a life peerage. Honours were something separate i.e. knighthoods, CBEs etc that were announced twice yearly in the New Year’s Honours List and The Queen’s Birthday Honours list.

Asked if someone could get a peerage that was not a working peerage that was an honour, the PMS said that the Prime Minister was able to nominate ten non-political peers during each Parliament, and there were also the People’s panel peers.

Asked if the PMS could tell journalists which political party each working peer on the list belonged to, the PMS said that it would be better if people went to the parties to get the breakdown.

Put to her that the Prime Minister had acted on the advice of the Commission last time, and the advice had been that the Commission was concerned about the number of people nominated who were donors, and asked if similar advice had been issued to the Prime Minister this time, the PMS said again that the advice from the House of Lords Appointments Commission was given in confidence.

Asked if the Prime Minister had followed that advice in every respect, the PMS said that as the Prime Minister had said during his recent press conference that he followed the advice and would continue to do so.

Asked if the Prime Minister had followed their advice in every case, the PMS referred people to what the Prime Minister had said during the March press conference.

Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied about the numbers of Labour peers in the House of Lords, the PMS referred journalists to the Labour Party.

Asked if this "fiasco" strengthened the Prime Minister’s resolve to introduce an electoral element to the House of Lords than currently existed, the PMS said she was not sure what the journalist was referring to. Asked again if the Prime Minister believed that it was time to elect the Upper House, rather than using appointments, the PMS replied that there was an ongoing process to look at the composition and powers of the House of Lords. That was being lead by Lord Falconer, and would continue. The Prime Minister had said that he would set out his view on this issue in due course, but he wanted the debate to continue.

Asked how many working peers on the list were Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, and if there were any cross-benchers, the PMS said she did not believe there were any. She recommended that people spoke to the individual parties for details.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, April 10, 2006

Peers List

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries