Tributes: Lord Laming
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(5 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, Herbert Laming, as Chairman of Committees, was the one who enabled us to set up a foreign affairs Committee; we called it the International Relations Committee. At last, after many struggles and many years, he enabled it to happen. That committee, of course, has been an outstanding success and has had considerable impact on public thinking, ideas and debate. In retrospect, I believe that will come to be seen as one of his greatest achievements.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, as we have heard, the death of Lord Laming, or Herbert as so many of us knew him, is a loss felt deeply across all these Benches. He was unapologetic in his determined campaigning to highlight the day-to-day pressures and achievements of those working in the social services and social care sectors. He gave voice to children who had none and never forgot those less able to protect themselves.
He showed that quiet persistence can change everything and that the gentlest of men can be among the most resolute reformers. He was a thoroughly kind, compassionate and decent person with a genuine interest in people, be it friends, colleagues, staff or complete strangers. He would always say to me, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, “How are you getting on?”, and he really did mean it. We will never forget him and the caring legacy he has left to our nation. May he rest in peace.
Message from the King
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to deliver to your Lordships a message signed with his own hand.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the message is as follows:
“His Majesty, being desirous that the provision made by Parliament for the financial support of the Royal Household should be considered, asks the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to concur in the adoption of such measures as the House of Commons may propose as suitable”.
Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, I vividly remember another very hot summer day during the Brexit wars, when the relationship between the Government and the press had broken down. There was no trust and we were struggling with the intricacy of the Northern Ireland protocol. We needed a lawyer who could help.
I was tasked with ringing Lord Mackay, who was a towering figure for all lawyers younger than himself; he really brought us on and mentored us in our profession. I rang him; I swallowed my pride and I explained the issue, which, of course he grasped, in under three seconds. Three minutes later, I saw him trotting out to College Green, where he was able not only to give live press interviews and put the matter to rest, but he spent the next couple of hours in baking sunlight explaining behind the scenes to members of the press how the law worked and what the answer was. We were fortunate to have him in our House for so long.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words of my own. As has been said, Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought to public life a wonderful combination of brilliance, courtesy, principle and faith. He was formidable, but never vain. He was learned, but never showy. He was firm in judgment but always humane. He was a proud Scot and a good friend to me.
Robert Burns’s lines, written in 1784, “Epitaph on my own Friend”, uncannily capture why all of us who knew him will miss James so much:
The friend of man, the friend of truth;
The friend of age, and guide of youth:
Few hearts like his, with virtue warm’d,
Few heads with knowledge so inform’d:
If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;
If there is none, he made the best of this.
Our thoughts today are with Bett, who, throughout some 68 years of marriage, was his formidable rock and guide. God bless her and her family at this time.
King’s Speech
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty was pleased this morning to make a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament assembled in the House of Lords. Copies of the gracious Speech are available in the Printed Paper Office.
I have, for the convenience of the House, arranged for the terms of the gracious Speech to be published in the Official Report.
Motion for an Humble Address
Clerk of the Parliaments
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, from these Benches I echo the comments of those noble Lords who have gone before me. I pay tribute to Simon Burton, whose service as Clerk of the Parliaments has been of lasting value to the House.
The strength of our parliamentary life depends not only on those who speak in debate but on those who ensure that our work is carried out with integrity, order and constitutional faithfulness. In that vital task, Simon has served with distinction. As Clerk of the Parliaments, he has been both guardian of ancient custom and wise guide through modern complexity. He has exercised that responsibility with clarity of judgment, intellectual rigour and an unfailing sense of proportion.
His counsel has reminded us that procedure is not an obstacle to good government but one of its essential safeguards. He has always displayed a can-do and hands-on attitude, exemplified by a query sent from our Benches to Simon relating to Prayers in the House. It turned out that this required removing an artwork from the upper West Front Corridor to read the only surviving original draft of the relevant Standing Order, which was on the artwork’s reverse. Simon dutifully obtained a screwdriver, removed it, read it and replaced it.
On behalf of all on these Benches, I acknowledge especially Simon’s attentiveness to the character of this House as a place of respectful disagreement and careful scrutiny. His advice has always been impartial, measured and deeply informed by a sense of the public good. As Clerk of the Parliaments, he met all new Bishops to give advice and support. In his previous role of Reading Clerk, he had the unenviable task of reading all our complicated summonses to the House.
As has been observed, Simon led his team with humanity and supported his colleagues with generosity and calm, particularly in moments of pressure. He has shown that true authority is most often exercised quietly, in the finest traditions of the House. At a time when confidence in institutions can be fragile, his service stands as a powerful example of professionalism, integrity and devotion to duty.
Simon’s legacy will be found not in prominence but in the strength and dignity of this House itself. On behalf of the Lords spiritual, and indeed the whole House, I offer Simon our sincerest thanks and very best wishes for the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, as I conclude the tributes from your Lordships’ House to our departing Clerk of the Parliaments, it remains for me to thank Simon Burton for his much-valued service and contributions. From his appointment to the post in 2021 to his retirement this year, the activity of the House has increased dramatically. Simon exercised his duties as this House’s senior clerk with all the confidence, compassion and energy that exemplified his long career of service in this place.
Simon will be remembered for the procedural changes made during his tenure that have been referred to and for the continual support he selflessly offered to Members of your Lordships’ House. We shall greatly miss Simon’s humour, insight and sense of duty. His meetings were often punctuated with gales of laughter coming from his room. We wish him a richly deserved retirement after his 38 years of service to us.
Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stephen (LD)
I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year-old newly elected Member of Parliament. I was a 23 year-old Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting. Off we went. On the way, he told me stories about the great Jo Grimond. Grimond had said that he would never trust a Secretary of State for Transport until he saw them coming to debates by bus or on the Tube. Little did I know during that 20-minute conversation that Jim Wallace would go on to have such a profound effect on my life and, more importantly, such a huge impact on the life of our nations.
Let us, for one moment, set aside everything that Jim did in the Scottish Parliament. We will come back to that. Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons as MP for Orkney and Shetland, as Chief Whip and in many Front-Bench roles. Then he spent 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week, as Minister and law officer, Advocate-General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats here and a year as Moderator of the General Assembly, when he stood down as a Liberal Democrat but never stopped being a liberal. All that—those 37 years alone—would amount to a remarkable political, parliamentary and Church career.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament was the pinnacle. From the start of his leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, Jim moved steadily towards his pivotal role in shaping, delivering and then helping to lead the new Parliament. He worked very closely with George Robertson, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar and then, after Donald’s tragic death, with Jack McConnell, now the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Jim had enormous respect for them all. The words of tribute from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have been even more poignant in the tragic circumstances of his own loss of his brother, which, by cruel coincidence, came on the very same day as Jim’s death. Our thoughts are very much with the noble Lord.
I had been elected to the other place in 1991 in a by-election and went to live during that time in a small room in Jim and Rosie’s London flat. Our friendship grew. Beyond politics, there were family visits to the Wallace home in Tankerness in Orkney. Jim was always great fun. Helen and Clare were young, and my children were even younger. They always called him Uncle Jim, and he would sing along to “Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree”, with the dance steps and the hand movements—I have the video. The low point in our relationship came in May 2000, when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team, Rangers, after they narrowly defeated my team, Aberdeen, 4-0. He was beaming as he handed over the trophy. I immediately sent him a text message encouraging him to smile less, but not using those words.
Jim met many remarkable people. He once hosted Kofi Annan at a United Nations dinner in New York and explained, of course, that he had been brought up in Annan in Dumfriesshire. Jim later ended the evening singing Burns songs and was delighted to discover that Kofi’s wife was called Nane. Obviously, out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words Nanannan.
Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people He was courteous, collegiate and consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity. He held things together repeatedly at a time when the new Scottish Parliament was being tested to its limits, and he did more than that. He helped deliver many things, such as free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees, a strong new freedom of information regime and PR for local government in Scotland. None of these things was easy.
Above all, it was not about the policies. Jim was about friendships, across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family—most of all about family, Rosie and Helen and Clare, his brother Neil and, of course, his grandchildren Catriona, Ella and Adam. “It’s very special”, he said to me recently, “being a grandfather”. Jim Wallace, you too were very special, very loved, and you will be very dearly missed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words of my own in tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, or Jim as he was known to his many friends both inside and outside Parliament and from all parts of the political spectrum. Lord Wallace lived a life of public service that stands as an example to us all, of dedication, hard work and love of his country. When he joined the House of Lords in 2007, after stepping down as an MSP, the deep emotional bond that this son of Dumfriesshire had forged with his island constituency was reflected in the title he chose for himself as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of Tankerness in Orkney. As the convener pointed out, he was pretty popular there, achieving in the 1999 election for the MSP for Orkney a remarkable 67% of the votes.
Jim was a kind, devout and decent man and a good friend to me. At a time when politics is held in low esteem, he was a model of public service, a great parliamentarian both north and south of the border and one who adored this House of Lords. He was, as we say in Scotland, gathered much too early. He will be much missed and mourned by so many folk who held him in the highest regard. My most heartfelt sympathies go out to his wife Rosie and their loving family.
Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I add the thanks of our Benches to our former Lord Speaker. We are enormously grateful for the warmth of his welcome to us, which began from the moment we were introduced to the House, and continued each day, as he introduced the duty Bishop leading Prayers. We also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose enormous gifts have already been attested, and with whom we look forward to working for the effective work and maintenance of the rights and privileges of your Lordships’ House.
One of my own privileges is to be invited to comment each day on requests for Private Notice Questions. PNQs are an important part of the work of the House. They allow us to raise matters that are urgent and important, and where the Order Paper is unlikely to offer a better opportunity. The wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in discerning which to accept has demonstrated his commitment to allowing the House to scrutinise government, while ensuring that the Questions asked are those which will shed light on an issue rather than simply rehearse familiar argument. We will experience an example a little later this afternoon.
He is of course of a different branch of the Christian faith from my own. Hugely influenced by the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez and the liberation theologians of Latin America so prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, he is as comfortable quoting from papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II as from Acts of this Parliament. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will quite follow him in that regard. John’s faith underpins his political beliefs, just as it does his character and moral standing. It was famously quipped of a Speaker in the other place, on a similar occasion to this, that there was Methodism in his madness. Of our own Lord McFall, may it truly be said that there is Catholicism in his kindness.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I wish to add a few words of my own in tribute to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have known him since the 1980s, when the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomond divided us: he was the Member for Dumbarton, and I was the Member for Stirling. We sat on opposing Benches in the House of Commons and often disagreed, but in later years we became firm friends. I came to respect him as an honourable, diligent and trustworthy parliamentarian, guided by principle and driven by the common good.
That instinct was rooted in his upbringing. He grew up in a tough, close-knit, working-class, Clydeside community where there was real hardship but also a strong sense of belonging and of responsibility for others. His mother ran a small newsagent’s shop serving the whole neighbourhood and it gave him an early feel for people and for what holds a community together. He believed everyone should have a second chance at education, as he did, as the Leader pointed out. He left school at 15 and took a job with the parks department, weeding flower-beds. Years later, he went to night school, where teachers spotted his considerable potential and encouraged him. That opened the way to university, a fulfilling career as a teacher and a deputy head, and a lifelong commitment to learning.
His public service showed the same seriousness of purpose, as a Minister in Northern Ireland and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, as has already been alluded to. In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, he helped to keep all communities engaged in the peace process. Following the financial crash of 2008, he held leading figures from the City to account in a series of Select Committee hearings which did much to expose the root cause of the crisis and paved the way for the Future of Banking Commission and the reforms designed to prevent another crisis.
In the House of Lords, he served as Senior Deputy Speaker and then as Lord Speaker, improving how the House works—there is more to do—and communicating its value to the country. He helped to steer the House through the Covid period, ensuring that scrutiny and revision continued when normal proceedings were severely disrupted. As Lord Speaker, he was tireless in explaining what this House contributes, encouraging sensible reform, but insisting that critics should first understand the work we do. He strengthened education and outreach, and embraced new ways of communicating, including digital media, to bring the work of members to a wider audience. He was the Members’ champion, accessible to colleagues, attentive to concerns, and determined that the House should serve its members better.
He now steps back from the Speakership so he can spend more time caring for his wife, Joan. He returns home, where he can still see from his window that flower-bed he tended as a young teenager. It should remind him, with pride, of how a life of public service began and blossomed to the benefit of Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom. He has won the affection of Members, staff and officials alike, and I know we all join in wishing him well in the future, together with his wife Joan.
Election of Lord Speaker
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I have known and worked alongside the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was Conservative MP for Stirling, on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side. It is fair to say that we did not see eye to eye on every issue. When there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say, “Aye, that’s McFall and Forsyth rowing again”. But, although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servant, dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee. After more than 40 years’ service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure the noble Lord will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime.
I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they conducted the election, and I also thank all those involved in the administration of the contest. But above all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for these very flattering tributes from all the Front Benches. My father would have been astonished and my mother would have believed them. I am overwhelmed and slightly humbled, believe it or not—I do not know why noble Lords are all laughing—by the confidence and trust that have been put in me by those who supported my election. Not all noble Lords voted for me and, for those who did not vote for me, I would just like to say that I completely understand why. That is because I had in my opponent a formidable candidate and I echo all the words that have been said about the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
The Clerk of the House was very kind and told both of us the result on Friday, so we have had quite an interesting weekend trying not to tell anyone what was happening. I rang the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and she has very kindly agreed to continue to support me as Deputy Speaker. We will work together to deliver what were so many common issues across the Benches—that you can be sure of.
I am sorry we are not allowed to say anything at this stage about the Lord Speaker. I think he has done a brilliant job and it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to build on the great work that he has done on increasing accountability in the House and moving us forward. I look forward to serving all noble Lords, whether they voted for me or not, with pleasure, and I will try to avoid being political—which for people like me must be a bit like coming off heroin as an addict.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean ExcerptsMonday 21st July 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 122-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (18 Jul 2025)
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, my grandchildren refer to the Parliament building from outside as “Grandpa’s office”.
This is a moment in which we have lit a fuse; a fuse which will ultimately change irrevocably the nature of the House of Lords and, more importantly, and perhaps for those at the other end to consider, the House of Commons.
I have always been opposed to the idea of an elected House of Lords, partly because of my experience in the House of Commons and my belief in the primacy of the House of Commons. As our leader, my noble friend Lord True, pointed out, to suddenly create a House which is wholly appointed and depends wholly on prime ministerial patronage is to open the gates for the arguments which we have heard for so many years from the Liberal Benches for an elected House. How can it be possible to sustain the idea that it is better to have people appointed by Prime Ministers than people who are elected by the people?
There is an opportunity, by accepting the amendment which has been made to the Bill, to at least mitigate it. If people see that Prime Ministers can remove whole groups of people, whether that is hereditaries, people over the age of 80 or people who have some other characteristic, then the voters will ask why the Prime Minister should choose and why they, as electors, should not choose.
If we have an elected House, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats wants—I am calling them Liberal Democrats today, because he is making a democratic argument—I think we will find that the future of the House of Commons as the primary Chamber will change irrevocably. That is the basis upon which all reforms have failed, when the penny has suddenly dropped for Members of Parliament that there will be a Member of the second Chamber in their constituencies; that their role as constituency MPs will be undermined; that their ability to make promises on the doorstep will be second-guessed; and that party management will result in the membership of this House, under an elected system, being determined by party leaders, so that it is filled with people who go along with whatever the party management wish—not something that I find very attractive.
I just hope that, at the other end, in the zeal for getting rid of hereditaries, which your Lordships’ House has done, they do not miss the point that they have a lit a fuse, which may very well blow everything they believe in and support apart, to the detriment of our country and the good management of our law.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-II(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (8 Jul 2025)
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 13, I should explain that I have tabled Amendment 13A on the supplementary list to put beyond doubt a point that may have been an unintended effect of the original drafting of Amendment 13. Amendment 13A ensures that the proposal in Amendment 13 would not apply to any existing Member of this House, but only to future ministerial appointments of new life Peers. After all, we on this side do not favour the forced expulsion of any Member of your Lordships’ House, and indeed your Lordships voted to support that important constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in the usual channels that, if the clarifying Amendment 13A is supported in a Division, Amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential, so there will be only one vote on this issue.
The purpose of this is to send a clear message to the other place and to all Governments—I emphasise “all Governments”, and will come back to that—that service as a Minister in your Lordships’ House should be properly remunerated. There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay, but this amendment is about pay.
I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I do not need to repeat all the arguments here, but let me set out three firm principles on which surely we across this House should all stand. The first is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; the second is equal treatment for Ministers in both Houses; and the third is that no Member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country for the lack of private means to do so. That is an unfairness that should have ceased to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. None of those basic principles that I have set out currently applies to Lords Ministers’ pay. Surely all Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whichever party is in office, should be paid. If they wish to renounce that pay, or any part of it, that is all well and good, but that does not affect the basic underlying principles.
In Committee, I spoke very frankly of my sense of shame—and, I might have added, anger—that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was Leader of the House because of, frankly, opposition at the top of both major parties. I exclude the noble Baroness opposite from this, who was extremely helpful and constructive in our discussions. I need not repeat those points today.
Towards the end of the last Government, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough. It is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then will now be rewarded by this Bill, as originally drafted, excluding them from our House.
As I said in Committee, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a consummate and internationally respected servant of his country, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance because he was so often unable to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen.
Today, the Downing Street website tells us—I take it directly from there—that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, all work as Ministers of State unpaid. The noble Lords, Lord Moraes, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all work as Government Whips unpaid, according to the government website this morning.
Perhaps only those of us in this House understand the immense burden and workload that falls on Whips in your Lordships’ House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly, and each of those Ministers I named are greatly admired and respected by their colleagues on this side of the House.
But no one should be required to do all that work without pay. No one in any other workplace would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. Where is the clause in the massive Employment Rights Bill to right the wrong that is done not just to those individuals but, frankly, to the dignity of this House?
I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire it tremendously because it has led noble Lords under successive Governments to give public service here without reward. But not everyone in this place has the means to do that. That is an unfairness and an injustice, and it should end.
The problem results from two 50 year-old statutes: the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 allows for up to 95 Ministers in the House of Commons. If the Commons takes up its full allocation of 95 ministerial places, the effective, legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under that limit of 109 is just 14. Clearly, that is not enough. The system must be changed. Of course, it could be changed by a simple Bill agreed across the parties to amend paragraph 2 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 Act. I am sure we could agree that very swiftly.
The self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However, it need not for ever be repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, I submit, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future Governments and all parties in the other place to address the issue. Now that the Bill has now been amended and is going back to the other place, I hope we may agree to send this important message down the Corridor.
On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House, it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here who may wish to serve their party and country as Ministers or Whips in this place but cannot afford to do so without pay to have that chance.
On our side, we will work across the House to agree and expedite a fuller solution going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this first step to the House, with the firm belief that if no message is ever sent, the same experience that I and former Leaders of the House have had will go on recurring and people here will be asked to work for nothing.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as explained, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I apologise for jumping the gun, but the enthusiasm I feel for this amendment from my noble friend goes back to the previous Parliament: I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my noble friend for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punchy points.
There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained, on the total number of Ministers. I was very indebted, in the last Parliament, to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that there seems to be an increasingly inflationary effect on the number of Ministers who are needed to run this country. When I was Secretary of State, pre-devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolutionary matters in Scotland, and we did it with one Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.
I am looking at my noble friend Lord Clarke. He and my noble friend Lord Fowler ran the Department for Transport in 1979 with two Ministers, and in 1979, that department was responsible for British Airways, the ports and the National Freight Corporation, none of which applies to the present or the previous Government’s Department for Transport, just to show that I am being non-partisan. In 1979, there were two Ministers, but by 2023 there were five Ministers in the Department for Transport, with much less to do.
The same was true of the DHSS, which had five Ministers in 1979. The DHSS was then split into two departments: the Department of Health and the DWP. The DHSS had five Ministers in 1979, but the two departments between them had 12 Ministers. You could argue that things have got more complicated, but there does seem to be an inflationary effect which even beats the Bank of England in the ability to create this kind of growth.
I think that it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld: no one should be unable to be a Minister because they do not have the private means to do so. But just to follow up on my point, it looks to me suspiciously as though ministerial appointments in the other place were being used as a means of patronage by the previous Government to make sure that people would go through the Lobbies.
This Government do not really need much patronage —until recently, at least, they had a huge and loyal majority—but it looks as if that is what is happening. If we add to that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on, it looks as if appointments are being used to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected Chamber and this House. I think that my noble friend’s amendment and this principle is very important, because it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.
This is not the only anomaly in the way this House is treated in respect of remuneration. Our Select Committees, if they go and do their work outside the House, can claim only half a day’s attendance, yet if people participate in our Questions remotely, they can claim a full day’s attendance allowance. I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how we in this House are paid £371 for just turning up. No one points out that, out of that £371, people are expected to make a contribution to their overnight allowance and expected to cover their own secretarial and research costs. I point out that in the other place, the allowance for secretarial and other support can go up to £250,000 and the housing allowance up to £25,000.
Yes, MPs have constituents but, in this House, we often sit long after the other place has gone because we are clearing up the mess which is left when Bills have not been properly considered. Ministers in this House—God bless them—are expected to stand at the Dispatch Box, although they do not always do so, and answer questions not only on behalf of their departments but for the whole of the Government. This is an onerous task, and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is, frankly, utterly outrageous.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else.
On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government.
As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not.
However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving.
So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose.
This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on a procedural point? If Amendment 13 were to be passed, Amendment 13A is clearly sensible. We are going to consider Amendment 13A first. Will it be possible to agree Amendment 13A and then vote against Amendment 13?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. My understanding—I look to the clerk—is that we will vote on Amendment 13A first, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that he regards Amendment 13 as consequential and would not seek to press it. It would have to be a vote for or against Amendment 13A, rather than Amendment 13.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have some validity. He said that, in practical terms, it probably means increasing the number of Ministers in order to deal with this issue. That would be a one-clause Bill that could be agreed between both Front Benches and would go through very quickly, I would suggest. Will the Leader explore with her colleagues the possibility of doing that? My noble friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view taken at the top of the party, which did not understand this place, not to agree to it. In fairness, there is overwhelming support, and anyone in the House of Commons who understood this issue would surely find it possible to vote for such a Bill without difficulty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed.
There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us.
Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the combination of titles with membership of the second Chamber is one of the many things that we have inherited from the medieval period and the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, most of us enjoy it and I particularly enjoy the title that I have, because the village in which I live is a special one, a world heritage site, and people love to come and visit us. But I am occasionally confused—some years ago I was at a conference in Japan from which I had to return early. As I shared a taxi to the airport with a senior Japanese diplomat, he asked me in a most polite way, “Are you returning to your estate”? I wanted to say, “No, to my allotment”, but did not feel that he would entirely understand the subtlety of that reply.
We in the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a working and modern second Chamber. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord True, in his quirky way, described this as a modernising move. It seems to us to be adding another area of complexity, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to our already highly complex honours system. There are plenty of honours around: there are knighthoods, damehoods, and members of the Order of the Companions of Honour and the Order of Merit. We are not quite sure why—perhaps for the Conservative Party in particular—if one wants to award one’s more generous donors with something, the title of a peerage is particularly important.
The noble Lord, Lord True, did the honour of quoting what I said at Committee. I emphasise that, in terms of modernising the role of the second Chamber, we are in favour of thoroughgoing reform in which the title would be separated from membership of this House. What would then happen to the title is, to us, a matter of secondary importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, has a particular problem with the existence of Liberal Democrats, which relates to events in Richmond in the past. It is even more difficult now that the Liberal Democrats are at roughly the same level as the Conservative Party in the polls.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, used to object to the appallingly high number of Liberal Democrats here at a point when we had, as he would point out, fewer than 10% of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons. Now that we are at two-thirds of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons, I look at those very full Conservative Benches and wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord True, really wish to defend the gross imbalance between Conservatives in this House and the other forms of representation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only in Richmond, but throughout England, the number of Liberal Democrat councillors is about to overtake the number of Conservative councillors, so there are a range of areas that are a source of underlying problems for the noble Lord, Lord True. No doubt he wakes at 2.30am and thinks about the Liberal Democrats in a devilish fashion.
What my party wishes is to separate the honours system from membership of this House. We value the work of the House as a second Chamber, we see it as a working second Chamber and we do not think it should be muddled with the honours system in the future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, but my recollection of the coalition Government is that every time the Government wanted to get agreement on a policy, the Liberals demanded more peerages, which is why we got those numbers. Therefore, for him to argue against this amendment is a particular example of how the Liberals behave in politics.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
That was an imaginative idea from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is the first time that I have heard it. I am not sure where his sources may be.
I do not wish to detain the House. This seems to us to be an unnecessary amendment, and we will not support it.