The ministerial changes announced today have a major impact on the House of Lords. The Leader of the House, Baroness Ashton, leaves Government to become an EU Commissioner (in place of Peter Mandelson). Her place is taken by the Chief Whip, Baroness Royall. A new Chief Whip has yet to be announced. Peter Mandelson will join the Cabinet and be made a peer. Baroness Royall and Peter Mandelson will not be the only peers at the Cabinet table: Lord Drayson (newly returned to Government) and Lord Malloch Brown will attend, though not being members, and Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, will attend when relevant matters are under consideration.
One noteworthy aspect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment is that it means a senior Departmental Cabinet Minister will now sit in the Lords. It used to be the case that two peers – the Leader of the House and Lord Chancellor – sat in Cabinet, but it was rare for a Secretary of State to sit in the House. Baroness Amos served briefly in 2003 as International Development Secretary; otherwise one has to go back to the days of Conservative Government for examples of senior Departmental Ministers sitting in the Lords.
Reports suggest that Lord Rooker, the Deputy Leader of the House, will also be leaving Government, so the senior ministerial ranks in the House will look very different next week to how they looked when the House rose in July. We will have a new Leader, Deputy Leader, and Chief Whip, and a senior minister who is destined to attract considerable attention.
Dear Lord Norton,
Let us hope that today’s events result in proposals for an elected Upper House being kicked into the long grass.
The Prime Minister would not have been able to make this ‘eye catching’ appointment in a fully elected Chamber (unless, of course, ministerial appointees there did not need to be elected).
Howridiculous.
Indeed: it is not just Peter Mandelson who is being elevated to the peerage in order to join the Government. Stephen Carter, the Prime Minister’s media supremo in No. 10, is also being elevated in order to take up a junior ministerisl post.
To play devil’s advocate:
This would probably be worked around by making part of the house elected. Salami tactics!
Lord Norton,
I was having a debate with someone today and I ended up saying the many reasons why I favour Britain’s constitutional settlement; I was bemused when I got accused of being a subscriber to the Whiggish view of history!
Have you ever been accused of this? If so, how would you counteract that charge?
Adrian Kidney: I have avoided subscribing to the Whig interpretation of history. There was no certainty that we would end up with the constitutional system that we have. It is a consequence of good fortune rather than being in any way the natural product of progress: things could have turned out very differently. We should be grateful for what we have rather than take it for granted. That is also why we have to be on our guard against change that will undermine what we have.
I am left wondering how their Lordship’s will receive the elevation of a discredited former minister to their chamber, simply so that he can sit at cabinet without being elected. I appreciate this is not an abuse, but it does, nonetheless, look like a bit of a boys club.
I agree entirely! That’s what I said. But because I said I was on the whole satisfied with the system we have, I was accused of being a Whig. Strange, that.
UK Voter: Membership of the Lords provides an opportunity for people to prove themselves. Past reputations are not necessarily a guide to how people will perform in the House. Some peers of whom great things are expected fail to meet expectations. Others arrive with a less than brillian reputation but prove themselves as effective and respected members of the House. It is up to each member to prove himself or herself. We shall have to see how Peter Mandelson performs.
They are two sides of the argument in respect of a Prime Minister being able to appoint people who are not MPs to ministerial office through nominating them for peerages. You put one side. The other is that it expands the choice available to the PM in forming a government. In the USA, the President can basically appoint anyone he wishes to his Cabinet. There are multiple routes to the top. In the UK, there is principally only one and this constricts the Prime Minister’s choice. He has to choose from the ranks of the parliamentary party. When you exclude those who are not likely to be appointed (for reasons of age etc) it is a small pool. Being able to nominate people for peerages enables him to go beyond this limited talent pool.
Lord Norton, given your extensive experience about the procedures and
policies could you answer a few questions. Do Ministerial Lords get
paid the same as their commons chamber counterparts?
Although they cannot get voted out of office in a general election I
assume they still hold office at the whim of the Prime Minister. If
such a hypothetical minister did screw up I assume they just resign.
Will they go back to being a “normal” Lord and only paid for turning
up? Do they get any of the other juicy benefits of their common
relations in so far as pensions and allowances?
Lord Norton,
You might be interested in looking at this post on ConservativeHome which asks whether Baroness Ashton is allowed to be appointed an EU Commissioner, due to her having a seat in the national legislature. Iain Dale wonders whether she could resign from the Lords and be reappointed at the end of her term as a Commissioner.
Matt.
Lord Norton: Iain Dale is speculating that all of this is going to cause a constitutional problem and that the likes of Baroness Ashton will have to resign her peerage. What are your thoughts?
Presumably Baroness Ashton of Upholland can take Leave of Absence from the Lords?
I guess this could be amended to apply to Commissioners too. I believe it was introduced for Baroness Ludford MEP:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081647_en_1
Further to the posts above of Paul and Matt, the question of eligibility of Baroness Ashton is an interesting one. Three specific question come to mind which Lord Norton may be able to answer. Firstly, what is the legal status of the code of conduct for commissioners? By the looks of it, it is a decree of Mr. Barosso and not really binding besides the fact that Mr. Barosso may ask commissioners to resign if the do not follow the code of conduct. Secondly, in the code of conduct, paragraph 1.1.1. states, among other things: “Commissioners may hold honorary, unpaid posts in political, cultural, artistic or charitable foundations or similar bodies. They may also hold such posts in educational institutions. “Honorary posts” means posts in which the holder has no decision-making power in the management of the body in question.” Is it not to be argued that when Baroness Ashton takes leave of absence, she holds a honary, unpaid post in a political similar body to a foundation according to the above mentioned definitions.
Thirdly, if you agree with the above mentioned point, how does this compare to the section that states: “Commissioners may not hold any public office of whatever kind” in the same paragraph of the Code of Conduct, though in a later section?
When you replied to Adrian Kidney you said:
“We should be grateful for what we have rather than take it for granted. That is also why we have to be on our guard against change that will undermine what we have.”
Given my own lay views on the future of the house and that they differ significantly from your own as a competent authority I am at a loss to see how we might resolve the current financial crises in the UK with any degree of concurrence without the house making comment or amendments to a money bill should it be required.
Before the Parliament Act 1911 it was the case that money bills always originated in the lower house so as to be nearer the people. After the Act no money bills could be raised by the Lords, given scrutiny or even commented upon.
Always fearful of the Lords’ metaphor the Americans view on this differed and article one of the American Constitution Section Seven states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
From Wiki:
“A bill may originate in either House of Congress, except that a revenue bill, under the Constitution, may originate in only the House of Representatives. The House has claimed that it alone may originate appropriation bills as well, but the Senate opposes this claim. In practice, the Senate can simply circumvent this requirement by substituting the text of any bill previously passed by the House with the text of a revenue bill, as was done with H.R. 1424”
The ‘Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act’ rewrites HR 1424 by replacing everything after section 1. If America has taken a bipartisan approach to alleviating a national crisis it is something we cannot do. HR 1424 in my view is on a par with Magna Carta in its importance. In contemporary terms it would have been a money bill or taxpayer’s charter.
It was the vote and amendments made by the Senate that saved the day. Historians will reflect on some of the bizarre components of the bill and the hurry under which it was created, just like Magna Carta.
Ref: Section 7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Section-By-Section Analysis of the Legislation:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml
Notes:
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html
On the issue of Baroness Ashton becoming EU Commissioner, there is nothing under the treaties that prevents a peer being appointed and there is a precedent. Lord Cockfield was a Commissioner 1985-89 (where he was a prime mover in the creation of the single market). The only salient issue arises, as David points out, in terms of the code of conduct for Commissioners and the extent to which it has a legal base. Even under the code, it may be interpreted in such a way as to enable Baroness Ashton to serve. As a peer (and no longer a minister), she is not the holder of a paid post and she can take leave of absence, though that is simply a way of letting the House know you will not be participating in proceedings for the session (and can be revoked, with notice, by the peer). For the period of leave of absence, she may claim she is not the holder of a public office.
On related points, Baroness Ashton cannot resign from the Lords. Once you are a life peer, you are a member for life. This can only be changed by statute. On the Statutory Instrument enabling peers to sit as MEPs, this has already taken effect (though it is being challenged in the Lords) and I am not sure that it could be extended to EU Commissioners: it is governed by the terms of the parent Act.
Senex: money bills can be and are commented on in the Lords. Finance Bills (though very few, incidentally, are certified as money bills) are debated on Second Reading. There was a recognition, though, that this did not really do justice to the wealth of knowledge available in the House. That is why the House has established a Select Committee on Economic Affairs in order to draw on the expertise of the membership in this area and to provide, for example, informed scrutiny of the Budget.
Alex Bennee: Sorry, I almost missed your query. Ministers in the Lords are paid less than ministers in the Commons. Ministers in the Commons receive ministerial salaries but also continue to receive their parliamentary salaries. If they are sacked, they remain as MPs and hence receive their parliamentary salaries. Ministers in the Lords are in receipt solely of their ministerial salaries (though they can also claim a night subsistence allowance if they retain a second home in London). If they are sacked, they remain as peers and are eligible for the same allowances as other peers.
All ministers who receive a ministerial salary (other than the Prime Minister) are entitled to a severance payment when they leave office (equalling basically three months of their annual salary). Their salaries are, as far as I am aware, pensionable.
Oh dear, ‘Powderject Paul’ is back in town..