BORIS Johnson has admitted there are too many peers in the House of Lords – despite nominating 36 new members in his dissolution honours list.
The list, which included the Prime Minister's brother Jo Johnson, cricketer Sir Ian Botham and former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, prompted accusations of "cronyism" and of failing to respect efforts to reduce the number of peers sitting in Parliament.
Downing Street said new members were needed to ensure the upper chamber has "appropriate expertise".
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson officially given Tory peerage in PM's honours list
Lord Speaker Lord Fowler has accused the Prime Minister of U-turning on a promise made by Theresa May to show restraint in new appointments, with the result that there will be almost 200 more members of the Lords than the Commons.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "It remains the case that the size of the House of Lords needs addressing but given retirements and other departures some new members are needed to ensure the Lords has appropriate expertise and it continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation."
The spokesman said it was a "long-standing convention that individuals can be nominated for an honour or peerage in recognition of their public and political service and that prime ministers can draw up dissolution and resignation lists".
READ MORE: This is every new peer on the latest House of Lords honours list
He rejected Lord Fowler's suggestion that some of the new peers would be "passengers" in the chamber.
"All of the individuals were nominated in recognition of their contribution to society and their public and political service," the spokesman said.
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: "Pressure is mounting for an overhaul of the Lords, after this shocking batch of cronyistic appointments.
"Even the Lord Speaker recognises that this situation is untenable and has completely over-ridden even the Lords' modest attempts at self-regulation.
"At over 800 members, this bloated chamber is making a mockery of democracy."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel