December 2024

The public can now expect to find out the reasons Boris Johnson officially provided for nominating Charlotte Owen and Ross Kempsell to the House of Lords, due to a lengthy FOI battle I have pursued.

A Tribunal has ruled that the confidential recommendations put forward by the former prime minister for two of his most controversial peerage appointments must be disclosed.

It has just ordered the release of the secret citations Johnson sent to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) for the peerages awarded to Charlotte Owen and Ross Kempsell in his resignation honours list in June 2023.

This is the latest stage in an 18-month freedom of information dispute between myself and HOLAC, which turned down my FOI request in July 2023 for the information held about these two nominees.

The First-tier Tribunal, which hears information rights cases, has now backed the view that releasing the citations Johnson submitted to justify the nominations is in the overall public interest.

It has also instructed that the identity of some public figures who were indicated as supporting Charlotte Owen’s appointment should be revealed.

I’m very pleased by the decision, which is a boost for transparency and democracy. Members of the House of Lords debate and vote on laws that control the British public’s lives. As a basic principle the public is fully entitled to know why they have been appointed to rule over us.

According to HOLAC, citations provide ‘the reasons for nomination’ and a statement of ‘personal and professional background and attributes’.

The two individuals involved are now known as Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lord Kempsell, and have both been active in the Lords after their somewhat unexpected appearance in Johnson’s resignation honours.

At the time of the announcement last year they were 29 and 31 respectively. Owen’s ennoblement caused a great deal of consternation and puzzlement, as there was no evidence of any achievement of hers that could explain it.

She was a junior staffer working in Johnson’s Downing Street operation. Press reports described her as possessing “no views, no achievements, no experience” and as “the most junior person in political history to have received a peerage”, while also alleging discrepancies in her career history.

The  Tribunal’s judgment published today states: “We attributed considerable weight to the public interest knowing the PM’s reasoning … Life peers are Members of Parliament with the rights, obligations and influence associated with such an appointment thus enhancing further the weight of the public interest in the PM’s citations.”

The Tribunal dismissed HOLAC’s arguments that releasing this information would damage the honours system and be a breach of confidence.

The decision means HOLAC has until 22 January to release the material.

I brought the case to the Tribunal to appeal against the Information Commissioner, who in March this year had upheld HOLAC’s rejection of my request. It shows that it is worthwhile challenging weak decisions from the IC.

The Tribunal has now overruled the Commissioner, following a one-day hearing in October. However it did not back all aspects of my appeal, coming down against the release of the detailed minutes of the HOLAC meetings which discussed Owen and Kempsell.

At the hearing, where I represented myself against HOLAC’s extensive legal team and cross-examined Clare Brunton, the secretary of HOLAC who is also head of the honours secretariat in the Cabinet Office, I argued that the process for giving certain individuals a status as legislators is a vital matter of the public interest.

Those appointed can approve or reject proposed laws, as well as being able to take part in parliamentary debates, directly question ministers, and so on. This entails the need for maximum transparency, so that the process is both legitimate and is seen to be legitimate, and the public can see for themselves whether appropriate procedures are followed.

Earlier this month the Labour government announced that in future the citations to support individual nominations for political peerages will be published.  This is also a welcome move towards much-needed greater openness in the appointments system for members of the House of Lords.

If you are interested in taking an FOI case to the First-tier Tribunal, there is a chapter devoted entirely to this with detailed and thorough advice in my book, Freedom of Information – A practical guidebook.