An almighty row over Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list has resulted in claims and counterclaims flying between the former prime minister’s team and the current No 10 operation. Both sides are pointing the finger of blame at the other for the confusion that has led to two byelections being triggered by those who lost out on being elevated to the Lords. What was Johnson pushing for? In an attempt to reward those who helped him in Downing Street, Johnson put forward at least 16 aides, colleagues and friends for peerages. He was entitled to do this, and the resignation honours list is something other outgoing prime ministers have previously used to decorate those who remained with them until the bitter end. It had been widely reported for months that among those to be rewarded were four sitting Conservative MPs: the Scottish secretary, Alister Jack; the former Cop26 president Alok Sharma; Nigel Adams, a backroom operator who held a roving Cabinet Office brief; and the ex-culture secretary Nadine Dorries. But there was a curious delay to the list being approved. Why the hold-up? Initially, the delay was attributed to the large size of Johnson’s honours list. The peerages were dealt with in tandem with other titles Johnson wanted to bestow on his close friends and confidantes. It took time for the government to whittle down Johnson’s initial controversial proposals, a process that reportedly included the removal of a knighthood for his father, Stanley. Meanwhile, the House of Lords Appointments Commission began vetting the names of the people to whom Johnson wanted to hand peerages and the lifetime lawmaking powers that go with the position. The commission ruled that it would not be possible for the four Tory MPs nominated to hold on to their seats and move to parliament’s upper house at the next election. They either had to commit to standing down from the Commons and joining the Lords within six months, or face being left off the list. Jack confirmed he would not step down early, ruling him out. How did Johnson try to break the deadlock? Johnson pushed for a rare face-to-face meeting with the prime minister to discuss peerages, which was granted on 2 June. Wary about the impending findings of an inquiry by the Commons privileges committee into claims he misled MPs over Partygate, which could have resulted in a byelection he was at risk of losing, he urged Sunak to act quickly. There were only three people in the room and accounts of what happened vary. It appears that Johnson came away from the meeting believing he had been given assurances his list of proposed peerages would be approved. But Downing Street insiders have suggested Sunak gave no such cast iron guarantee, and instead merely signalled his intention to simply sign off on the approved list that came back from the appointments commission. Why did the final list trigger such chaos? In the end, only eight peerages were accepted by the commission, and the names of those who had been cleared to join the Lords was published on Friday. In a highly unusual move, No 10 declassified the list it got back from the commission in February. This was to show that Sunak had not removed any names and that any omissions were not his doing. As well as the seven names announced, there was an eighth – although it was redacted. No 10 said the person withdrew for personal reasons. So what happened to the missing names? The commission decided during vetting not to approve some of the people on the list. Its role, after all, is not to wave every request through but to evaluate nominations for life peers to “ensure the highest standards of propriety”. It appears that Dorries, Adams and Sharma had been under the impression for months they would be on the final list. But it has become clear now that in order to join the Lords, they were meant to have either quit the Commons already or informed the commission they were planning to do so.
There may also have been further propriety concerns. For instance, some argued Dorries should not be given a peerage after “showing a contempt for parliamentary process” by repeatedly disparaging the privileges committee. Additional claims have been raised by Johnson allies that Sunak’s team may have quietly watered down the list before it was sent to the commission. Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, said on Sunday: “As far as I’m aware, that’s not true.” The row threatens to further erode relations in what is an already acrimonious Conservative party. Dorries and Adams have quit the Commons, triggering the very byelections Sunak was keen not to cause by giving them peerages in the first place. Hannah White, the director of the Institute for Government, said the revelation that about 50% of those proposed for peerages were rejected by the commission – well above the previous average of about 10% – would “further cement [Johnson’s] reputation for constitutional recklessness”.