Leader of the House of Lords

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

I would have thought that this would appeal to all parties and to both Houses. Both would benefit. It does not favour one party—the Labour Government got into some difficulties over this issue and this constraint during their time. It is the best, speedy way out of this difficulty for the Prime Minister and for both Houses, and speaking entirely personally, I so recommend. This issue could be solved, and we could return to the position that there was with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, if that short amendment were made to the 1975 Act as swiftly as possible.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Motion so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I make clear at the outset that I very much support that part of the Motion that welcomes the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, to her new post and new responsibilities. Like so many noble Lords in this House, I am only sorry that she should have been appointed in such a way as to cause so much controversy and, frankly, so much dismay, about the terms on which she has been appointed.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, last week the Select Committee on the Constitution published a very clear and concise report on the status of the Leader of your Lordships’ House. As a description of the events around this issue, it sets out a series of decisions and amendments to those decisions that demonstrate the contradictions, the inconsistencies, and the major problems that the terms of this appointment have given rise to.

On 15 July the Prime Minister announced, on Twitter, that the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, would be the new Leader of the House of Lords,

“and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster”.

Indeed, she is on record in Hansard for that day as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, the next day, on 16 July, the noble Baroness kissed hands on a different appointment—that of the Lord Privy Seal.

In this reshuffle, No. 10 and others around the Prime Minister were very keen to demonstrate his commitment to having women properly represented in the Government. Many of us welcomed that development. On the very day of her appointment, though, it emerged that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, would not be a full member of the Cabinet. Instead, she would be a Minister “attending Cabinet” and not paid a Cabinet Minister's salary. As we are all aware, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, her predecessor, was given the full status of a Cabinet Minister and the full salary that went with it. Clearly, this was an embarrassing setback to the ambition of enhancing women’s position as government Ministers.

In an attempt to mitigate this embarrassment, on the same day, 15 July, the Conservative Party announced that the difference between the salary of a Minister of State and that of a Cabinet Minister would be made up by the Conservative Party. I do not think I was alone in believing that this was not only entirely inappropriate but also unconstitutional for a Minister representing all parties in this House, including the Cross-Benchers. It was also totally inappropriate for a Minister who had accountability to the Crown rather than to the Prime Minister, either as the Chancellor of the Duchy or as Lord Privy Seal, to receive part of their salary from any political party. A week later, that suggestion was withdrawn when on 22 July the Leader said that she would not accept the Conservative Party “top-up” because of her responsibilities to all parts of this House. It was a good, sound decision on her part.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

The Prime Minister's letter of 22 July, which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor has referred to, says that the Leader of the House of Lords should,

“as a general rule, always be a full member of the Cabinet”.

The word “always” cannot be qualified by the words “as a general rule”. Either the Leader of this House should always be a member of the Cabinet, as has been the case, or it is a matter for the Prime Minister's discretion. This Prime Minister has decided that the general rule did not apply but that his discretion did. I fear that in doing so he has set a precedent for future Prime Ministers.

In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, which the noble Lord kindly quoted to us earlier on, the Prime Minister says it was,

“not possible on this occasion”,

to make the noble Baroness Lady Stowell, a full member of the Cabinet,

“owing to the provisions of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975”.

That Act says there are 21 Cabinet salaries payable, plus the salary of the Lord Chancellor. Apart from the salary to the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister may appoint who he wishes to be a Cabinet member. He also has discretion over 19 salaries that could have been awarded to the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House as has been the case since the passing of that Act in 1975. So it was not the case, as the Prime Minister claimed and as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that the award was,

“not possible on this occasion”;

it was because the Prime Minister chose not to make it. It was his judgment.

There are 21 Cabinet Ministers plus the Lord Chancellor—Ministers who receive a full Cabinet salary and status. There are also 11 Ministers “attending Cabinet”, not in the first rank but doing important jobs and no doubt happy to be around the Cabinet table. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, evidence of highest regard that the noble Baroness is also round the table. Why is she not one of the 21—or 22, with the Lord Chancellor? Why is she one of the 11 second-rankers around that table?

The Companion to the House states that the Leader of the House is a member of the Cabinet. Moreover, and possibly more significantly, Erskine May also describes the Leader of this House as a member of the Cabinet. The Constitution Committee in its excellent report said that there were no examples of any Leader of this House who has not been a member of the Cabinet. Arguably, this calls into question the status of the Companion, the status of Erskine May and the conventions between the two Houses. These are not trivial matters; these have been the rules that are the foundations on which we operate. If they can be altered by a Prime Minister without consultation and without any reference whatever to Parliament, what else can be changed? That opens up huge constitutional questions for us.

Frankly, none of us knows whether this decision was deliberate or whether it was one taken through sheer carelessness. Did the Prime Minister realise that in making the appointment in this way he was diminishing the status of your Lordships’ House and creating an unacceptable precedent, or was there a ghastly moment when he realised that he had one too many Ministers for the salaries available? We cannot know—or at least we cannot know until the diaries are published.

In my view, this Prime Minister has done well in not having many ministerial reshuffles, even if that is because of the limitations of government by coalition. Fewer reshuffles are almost certainly better for good governance. Just because this Prime Minister is inexperienced in reshuffles, though, others in government, including senior civil servants, are not. Between them all, they should not have got this so wrong—and they have got it wrong: wrong for the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell; wrong, even for their own purposes, for the reshuffle and the Government; wrong for this House, as one of the two Houses of Parliament; and wrong for the constitution, and the important and complicated relationship between the Executive and Parliament.

The Prime Minister would be a bigger and better Prime Minister if even now he reconsidered his decision. He should do so. A mistake is a mistake: the Prime Minister should correct it. It would be better for him to do so, better for the noble Baroness, better for the constitution and better for your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this is for me a very sad debate. We all recognise the very many talents that my noble friend will bring to the key role of Leader of our House, and we all respect the shining integrity with which she will perform her duties here. That makes it all the more disgraceful that she should have been put in this invidious position. The disreputable game of musical chairs 10 days ago does nothing to inspire confidence in the competence of the Prime Minister’s advisers. The circumstances are all too reminiscent of that infamous Friday afternoon when No. 10 thought that the Lord Chancellor could be abolished with a press release. Is there nobody there with any appreciation of the basics of our constitution, to which the noble Baroness has just referred? When will they ever learn?

The demotion is far from simply symbolic, but to my mind the worst feature of this whole charade was the reaction when the reduction in salary paid to her male predecessor was pointed out. How could anyone think that it was appropriate for the leadership of your Lordships’ House in any way to be remunerated from political party funds? Both the Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Leader of the other place occupy especially non-partisan positions as servants of the whole of their respective Houses, with an expectation that they will speak and act dispassionately on behalf of the whole House that they represent, even when their Cabinet colleagues are taking a more partisan view. Having shadowed a number of Leaders of the Commons, I can confirm that, irrespective of party, they invariably see their role as quite distinct in this respect from that of other members of the Cabinet. In exactly which of his or her duties in the leadership of this House would the Leader be expected correctly to be identified as acting on behalf of one political party? It is a nonsense.