Really good article from Hannah White at The Institute for Government about why we should be concerned about Johnsons use of Honours Lists. It's worth a few minutes of your time.
Whatever we end up doing about the HoL in the future, currently it serves a crucial role in scrutinising legislation and we should as a bare minimum insist that the members are suitable to the task and fully engaged.
I was amazed to read that Johnson made 94 peers in his short stint as PM. The HoL is now has 760 members.
"The House of Lords Appointments Committee (HOLAC) has confirmed that it rejected on the grounds of propriety no fewer than eight individuals who Johnson had proposed to ennoble. With seven new peers making it onto the list, that represents a rejection rate of over 50%. The previous average has been around 10%. This fact, combined with Johnson’s indictment by the Privileges Committee for misleading parliament, will further cement his reputation for constitutional recklessness."
"This presents a serious risk to the reputation and credibility of the House of Lords, which – without democratic legitimacy – is based on the quality of its membership. Resignation honours allow former PMs to reward friends and political allies rather than appointing individuals with a clear contribution to make to the legislature, heightening perceptions of cronyism. These perceptions are then reinforced if the individuals in question fail to participate in the work of the Lords – treating it as a rarified members’ club rather than a place of work – a concern expressed by the Lord Speaker Lord McFall in 2022."
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/boris-johnsons-resignations-honours