Did Rishi Sunak block peerages for Boris Johnson’s allies?

Could Downing Street have blocked the peerages indirectly? asks Jon Stone

Boris Johnson with Nadine Dorries, a close ally (PA)

Two Boris Johnson allies quit the House of Commons this weekend: Nadine Dorries walking out on Friday and Nigel Adams on Saturday. Both were reportedly expecting peerages in Mr Johnson’s resignation honours but did not get them.

It was reported in advance that Rishi Sunak had rejected the gongs. He supposedly did not want any sitting MPs being elevated to the House of Lords.

The claimed reason for this was that MPs who move to the Lords must trigger a by-election to fill their vacant seat.

With the Tories lagging far behind in the polls, even relatively safe seats like those vacated by Dorries and Adams are at risk of falling to the opposition.

The MPs, angered that their plans had been stymied, quit anyway and gave Mr Sunak a major political headache.

But Downing Street denies that the prime minister blocked the peerages.

In an interview with the BBC, cabinet minister Grant Shapps insisted: “The committee would have to say if the prime minister removed anyone.

“The prime minister has exactly followed the very long-standing conventions of prime ministers who simply take the list and pass it on and receive it back.”

Alright – but if not the prime minister, then what about someone on his team? Pushed on whether someone in No 10 had purged the list, Mr Shapps replied: “My understanding is no. As far as I’m aware, that is not true.”

Mr Sunak’s press secretary has also said the prime minister forwarded his predecessor’s list to the Holac (House of Lords appointment committee) vetting process, which then passed back the approved list.

Mr Sunak then accepted the commission’s approved list and “forwarded it unamended to the Sovereign for their approval”, she said.

Though Downing Street and its allies have not quite said this, the seeming implication is that Johnson never nominated the MPs and that it is wrong to blame Sunak.

Yet this leaves us with a mystery: why would Boris Johnson promise peerages and then not nominate his allies? There is no cost to the former prime minister for nominating the peers.

The fact no sitting MPs are on the list at all should raise eyebrows. Even Alok Sharma, who was due to get a peerage for his widely respected work as Cop26 president, missed out.

And it is undeniable that the coming by-elections – apparently triggered in spite by slighted MP – will be difficult for Mr Sunak.

When asked whether Mr Johnson’s original submission contained names that do not feature in the committee-approved document sent to the King, No 10 said the list remained confidential. Yet it has released other confidential documents to try and prove Mr Sunak had nothing to do with blocking the peerages.

The House of Lords Appointment Committee has, according to the Institute for Government think tank, confirmed it rejected eight peerage nominees put forward by Mr Johnson on the grounds of propriety.

There are suggestions in Westminster that the committee may have rejected the peerages for MPs on the basis that they were not already due to stand down.

But as demonstrated by the immediate departure of the two MPs this weekend, they were clearly willing to quit. Could No 10 have stymied the appointments indirectly through this mechanism?

At this stage, we do not know. Either way, the episode makes the appointments process seem rather opaque.