HOLAC

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.

My attempt to find out what the House of Lords Appointments Commission had to say (if anything) about the award of peerages to Charlotte Owen and Ross Kempsell by Boris Johnson has just been rejected by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

I will now be appealing this to the First-tier Tribunal, on the grounds that in my opinion it is in the public interest for this material to be revealed, despite the view of the ICO.

Last July I made a freedom of information request to HOLAC for the material it held about the two individuals we now know as Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lord Kempsell, after their somewhat unexpected appointment to the House of Lords in Johnson’s resignation honours list.

After HOLAC declined to send me anything, I complained to the ICO. My arguments can be summarised as follows:

• The appointment of members of a law-making assembly, people with substantial political influence and decision-making powers to make laws governing the rest of the population, requires a great degree of legitimacy, and that in turn demands maximum transparency.
• This is especially true for these two individuals, given (a) their comparative youthfulness means they are likely to hold politically powerful roles for several decades and indeed in due course may well be amongst the longest-serving legislators in the UK’s history; and (b) the widespread public puzzlement and concern as to what they have achieved or what qualities they possess.
• Issues of propriety (HOLAC’s responsibility here) are an important aspect of assessing suitability for membership of the House of Lords.
• Disclosure is necessary for the legitimate interests of the general public to understand fully the processes for appointing people who take decisions on behalf of the nation, and for the public to be able to see for themselves whether the processes are adequate.

HOLAC argued:

• Their process requires confidentiality to ensure that decisions are taken on the basis of full and honest information and that potentially sensitive vetting information can be candidly assessed.
• The information it already places in the public domain about its working practices provide the public with reassurance that its processes are sufficiently rigorous.
• In the case of a resignation honours list, its role is limited to an advisory one, notifying the prime minister of whether it has concerns about the propriety of peerage nominations, and does not extend to assessing the overall merits of nominees.

The ICO has upheld HOLAC’s stance. We will now find out what the First-tier Tribunal makes of the rival arguments. It is likely to take several months before the Tribunal decides the case.

I was interested to see last month that the UK Governance Project, a high-powered independent commission with a distinguished membership, drew attention to the problem of lack of transparency at HOLAC. It recommended that HOLAC should always have to publish a citation setting out the basis on which it has approved an individual for appointment.