Four Crossbench life peerages

[David Beamish]

The Prime Minister has announced four new Crossbench life peers:

Sir Tim Barrow GCMG LVO MBE - lately National Security Adviser. Former Second Permanent Under-Secretary and Political Director at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO).

Dr Simon Case CVO - lately Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. Former Private Secretary to HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Former Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Dame Katherine Grainger DBE - Chair of the British Olympic Association, former Chair of UK Sport and former Olympian. Former Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, currently Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.

Dame Sharon White, Lady Chote, DBE - former Chair of the John Lewis Partnership, former Chief Executive of the Ofcom and former Second Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury.

Citations at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crossbench-peerages-june-2025

[sven_me...@web.de]

Oh no not again.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

It never seems to end.

At some point, everyone in the UK will either be a life peer, related to one or know one.

Brooke

[rcb1]

All worthy appointments,  which will bring useful experience, in most cases notably lacking in the House of Commons at present, I would have thought.

Sir David Beamish will know more about this than me but, as I understand it,  the House of Lords Appointments Commitee is still mandated to come up with a handful of names on a regular, approximately annual,  basis.  This seems a sensible arrangement to me.

I don't particularly share the sense of that House of Lords appointments are out of control. Unsurprisingly,  the change of government has led to an increase in appointments over the last year, so we are now back close to the peak since the automatic right of hereditaries to sit was abolished.   I do see the argument that  it might be better to have about the same number as there are MPs, rather than the current 834, to allow those that really are expert on a subject to make longer speeches or sit on the Select Committees.   So, there is an obvious case for reimposing an informal "2 out, 1 in" guideline for a period. 

 "Natural wastage" seems to be steadily rising, as the larger number appointed since 1997 retire or die.  However, it's understandable that the government will want to redress the current position, that the Conservatives have 74 more peers that Labour.  So I wouldn''t hold my breath for it to happen in a hurry. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

Sorry your comment is not exactly meaningful. AN umdemocratic chamber with far too many people in need of reform of which only small things are planned. No sense in floading it. 

The other site of it the dangerous hate on politicians. 

So you must be the rcb1 from wikipedia. 

[Paul Theroff]

Agreed.

It may be undemocratic, but then almost all "democratic" systems are. In the US, only electoral votes count, and we have seen that they often give a different result than the actual popular vote (2000, 2016, for example). In the UK the "first past the post" system means that parties often obtain a number of seats wildly dis-proportional to their percentage of the popular vote, and it is extremely rare for a party with the majority of seats to have received the majority of votes.

The UK Constitution currently provides for a non-elected Upper House. So, whether it is democratic or not, it must be filled, and I don't see why a larger number of members is worse than a smaller number.

[Richard Cumming-Bruce]

I agree with Sven that there areas where the Lords coud benefit from reform.   In particular,  I'm not sure that any government has yet properly addressed the question of:  what do you want it to do?   I think that is actually more important to address than:  who do you want to be in it?   And I think that the breadth of experience, in an era where party politicians increasingly seem to have similar and narrow experience, is actually a positive.   I also think that, although deomocracy is obviously a good thing per se, it is quite difficult - more difficult than Sven seems to think - to introduce a democratic element to the Lords without  changing - and probably damaging - its relationship with the House of Commons.  I think one undermines the current undisputed primacy of the House of Commons,  precisely because of its democratic mandate - at one's peril.  And i am, to say the least, unpersuaded, that replacing many of the (unelected) cross benchers with more party politicians would be in the interests of our public life.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/3pqhhXyOHg4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/3a36f05d-4e6d-41ea-9f5a-d84f846dfb97n%40googlegroups.com.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I'm sorry that your kind of thinking is such a confused one. So many mistakes in such a short text. 

[Richard Cumming-Bruce]

I don't see your argument.  Merely a bald,  rather patronising, statement.   That's the end from in this thread.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/4dcb9049-1c55-48f8-b1a2-a7a629ac5e71n%40googlegroups.com.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I'm sorry that you are not understanding my point or don't want to.

[Richard Cumming-Bruce]

I think I broadly know what your point is.   I understand from your previous posts that you think that  it's vital that every parliamentary body has democratic legitimacy and accountability.   I respect that viewpoint, even if I don't entirely agree with it.  I just didn't see the argument that you had to back up the - distinctly patronising - comment you made about my argument being flawed.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/3f406f67-89df-423f-ba22-3e450cba94c3n%40googlegroups.com.

[malcolm davies]

I think a point missing in this discussion is this-the House of Lords is both an upper house which has a valuable function in reviewing legislation,and a body whose membership involves being created a peer.

It is quite possible to have an upper house which gives no style and title to its members,even if they are appointed rather than elected.A case in point is the the Canadian Senate,the members of which are recognised by the title of Senator whilst in office.

Traditionally peerages were hereditary-they were an honour based on service to the country that was of such merit that the title should descend in perpetuity to the peer's direct male heirs.

How many of the peers presently members of the House of Lords:

1.Gave service to their country which required recognition with a peerage and not another honour?

2.Gave service of a kind such that it merited recognition by future generations?

The answer to this question is certainly not 834.

The answer to the question is also aided by the fact that there have been 500 or more life creations since 2010,suggesting that the number of persons meriting a title is greater than public perception of it

As this link indicates,merit has very little to do with appointment:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/69163/what-the-data-tells-us-about-becoming-a-life-peer

[Peter FitzGerald]

It is also worth noting two points:

1) Although the number of peers is now higher than historically in absolute terms, it is actually lower in relative terms. At the time of the Acts of Union in 1707, there were 168 English members of the English House of Lords, at a time when England's population was only about 5 million. A similar ratio would now produce a House of Lords with a membership of over 2,100.

2) The size of a part-time upper chamber will generally need to be higher than a full-time one. Comparisons to upper chambers whose members are full-time politicians therefore need to be treated carefully. If the House of Lords had only e.g. the 100 members of the US Senate, debates would be very sparsely attended indeed.

Malcolm Davies's question is a very interesting one - I wonder how many current peers would have been seen as sufficiently worthy to have been granted peerages back in the days when hereditary peerages were the only option. Back when granting a peerage resulted in a potentially permanent increase of the size of the Peerage as a whole, they were handed out significantly more sparingly. Some senior military and political figures would qualify even under the old system, no doubt (though far fewer of the latter than are currently ennobled), but I suspect they would make up a relatively small number of current peers.

[colinp]

From the Edinburgh Gazette 22 July 2025:

Crown Office

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 17 July 2025 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the following:

In the forenoon

The Right Honourable Simon Case, C.V.O., by the name, style and title of BARON CASE, of Fairford in the County of Gloucestershire.

In the afternoon

Dame Sharon Michele White, D.B.E., by the name, style and title of BARONESS WHITE OF TUFNELL PARK, of Tufnell Park in the London Borough of Islington.

Crown Office

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 18 July 2025 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Sir Timothy Earle Barrow, G.C.M.G., L.V.O., M.B.E., by the name, style and title of BARON BARROW, of Penrith in the County of Cumbria.

[ThomasFoolery]

Little surprising there never been a Baron Case before   

[bx...@yahoo.com]

All three now have their own page on DPB Online.

Years of birth are as follows: 

Lord Case, 1977

Lady White of Turnell Park, 1966

Lord Barrow, 1964.

Brooke