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.
Great news. There is much interest in how those people actually got a place c in the HoL. Thank you.
Congratulations – and thank you for your persistence in seeking to expose the truth.
Very persistent of you. Congratulations !!! Johnson’s reign was bogged down with the most appalling corruption. I think most of us expect Johnson’s case to be very very weak. It’s actions like this that gives me faith that the UK has not been broken by these people.
Well done !! Only the tip of Johnsons curruption & cronism.
Great work. Thank you for your tenacity in this case.
Boris Johnson prior to being elected was a witty journalist and an entertainer.
He was one of the worst Prime Ministers we have had since the war.
Mass immigration 2020-2024, water companies wholly corrupt and incompetent, the Post Office, no real policies and no great changes to failed Banks, secondary and higher education.
Well done on your FOI.
Their nomination may reveal they deserve to be in the HOL on the other hand they may not.
At least the transparency you have sought will clarify
Thanks
Fantastic work Martin, but I fear it may not reveal much more than trite phrases like “a valued advisor and member of the team”. I just hope the whole experience of having to fight this has given HOLAC a bit of a fright and will make them less likely to repeat it.
Yes, I rather fear that will be the case but that is not to underestimate the excellent and value work Martin has done.
If they try that, and they might, it would further devalue the selection process for honours if they show how low the bar is in such a case.
Excellent work. Well done for achieving the release of this information. It should never have been withheld by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in the first place.
Well done you for pursuing this. It is of huge public interest and a potential huge step in the right direction for the UK in terms of transparency and accountability…..much much needed! Thank you!
Excellent news and Thankyou for your determined and persistent efforts to allow us all to know why these people are allowed literally to “Lord”it over us. They have the powers over governing us. These are people with a lifetime of guaranteed money, and power. At the very basic minimum, please
tell us WHY they are given this power and status and what this process is about.
Thank you for your dogged persistence..we absolutely have a right to know and I await the information with bated breathe
Transparency is everything.
With the rise of Farage the need for accountability and service to the public interest will be paramount.
Well done, about time Johnson’s underhand dealings were outed. Please keep up the good work.
Good work Martin, good to see this matter was hotly pursued – as it should be.
So I wonder who is being protected by failure to, “release … the detailed minutes of the HOLAC meetings which discussed Owen and Kempsell”?
Is it the appointees or the commission members?
I have great admiration for Martin’s persistance in this, and other FOIs. Authorities seldom adhere to the spirit of this legislation and are happy to drag it out in ways designed to make the enquirer give up. They must have used the example of the Hoover Free Flight scam to dissuade all but the most persistent. Having beaten the Hoover scam I’ve had my own battles with government depts, most noticeable the Cabinet Office (over Johnson’s antics) and NHS bodies. Thus I see what a great victory this FOI has been. Thanks Martin, it’s reinvigorated me. And now to buy your book to replace that of Heather Brooke