I find it hard to see what Wrotten hopes to gain from this. Presumably he hopes that Peers who were not part of the Inquiry Committee will vote down its conclusions and recommendations.
I don't know about Ad Hoc inquiry committees, but decisions of the Law Lords are (technically) recommendations to the House and are 'voted' on when judgment is given. The last time a lay-lord intervened in judgment was when Lord Denman intervened at judgment in the case of Bradlaugh v Clarke in 1883, but it is not clear whether his vote was counted and it did not affect the decision. No lay Lord has sought to intervene in the consideration of an appeal since.
For individual peers in the House in general not to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee chaired by a law lord would be tantamout to acting as Lord
Denman attempted to do.
I fear that even queenie Wratten's delusional nature has really over-extended iself this time. Incidentally, this month's Chartered Inst of Personnel Mgmt (CIPD) mag has an interesting article on 'Working for a Bastard'. It points out that it is psychological insecurity that makes people into bastards. Anyone care to start a list for the RAF's biggest bastard of the last 25 years?