A Government nowadays usually comprises over 120 ministers, with twenty to thirty drawn from the House of Lords. The figure includes whips, who in the House of Lords fufil additional functions to those carried out by whips in the House of Commons. In the Commons, whips are usually seen but not heard. In the Lords, they are seen and heard, since they fulfil the duties of junior ministers, answering for Departments that have no dedicated minister in the Lords or supplementing the lead minister. They can be extremely busy at the Despatch Box. This week’s quiz focuses on ministers in the Lords. As usual, the first two readers to supply the correct answers will be the winners. The winners of the previous quiz, on the House and the EU, were Len and Dave H. Congratulations to them.
1. Who was the first woman to hold a Cabinet post in the Lords as head of a Department (in other words, not the Leader of the House)?
2. Who was the first woman in the House of Lords to hold the post of Attorney General?
3. Who has been the only minister in the House of Lords to hold the post of First Secretary of State?
4. How many members of the current House of Lords have held the office of Lord Chancellor and who are they?
5. Following the recent ministerial changes, which whip in the House now answers questions on behalf of the Cabinet Office?
1. Baroness Young was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Lord Privy Seal, in addition to being Leader of the House of Lords. It’s arguable how much of a Department is the Duchy of Lancaster, but it exists!
2. The Baroness Scotland of Asthal
3. The Lord Mandelson
4. Three – Lords Irvine or Lairg, Mackay of Clashfern and Falconmr of Thorotn
5. Baroness Rawlings
Clearly Lord Norton thinks I cannot both watch Wales play France and also answer questions like these!
Dan Filson: I can assure you I had no intention of drawing any inference from the fact that you appear to have been watching a rugby match and getting one of the answers wrong (even if one allows that the Duchy of Lancaster is a Department)!
I love these quizzes. Never know most of the answers, but, it is an interesting way to focus our minds of what is going on in this place outside our domain.
maude elwes: Many thanks for that comment. Much appreciated.
@Lord Norton:
The pleasure is all mine.
1. Baroness Young was Lord Privy Seal in 1982, but I don’t think that’s a department head. Baroness Chalker was Minister for Overseas Development from 1992 but back then it was part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Baroness Amos became Secretary of State for International Development on 2003, by which time it appears to be regarded as a department in its own right.
2. Baroness Scotland (the only one, as far as I can tell)
3. Lord Mandelson
4. Three: Lord Falconer, Lord Irvine, Lord Mackay.
5. Baroness Anelay.
1. Baroness Amos
2. Baroness Scotland of Asthal
3. Lord Mandelson
4. Three (Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
5. Baroness Verma
1. I’d take a guess Baroness Chalker of Wallessy (although it was a sub-dept of the FCO so quite possibly not)
2. Baroness Scotland of Asthal
3. Lord Mandelson
4. Three – Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton
5. Baroness Verma? (But not a recent change according to the Parliament.uk site so possibly not)
1. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Minister for the Cabinet Office)
2. Baroness Scotland of Asthal
3. Peter, Lord Mandelson
4. Lords MacKay of Clashfern, Irvine of Lairg, and Falconer of Thoroton
5. According to the HLIO Spokespersons in the House of Lords page, Baroness Verma and Lord Wallace of Saltaire
1) Baroness Amos
2) Baroness Scotland of Ashtal
3) Lord Mandelson
4) Three: Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Mackay of Clashfern
5) Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Er, for (1), Baroness Amos as SoS for Int Dev)
The answer to the last question was the dificult one and caught out Dan Filson as well as Dave H. As Rich notes, Lord Wallace of Saltaire now answers for the Cabinet Office. He replaces Lord Taylor of Holbeach who has been promoted to ministerial office. However, I would also accept Baroness Verma, as Lord Wallace, though a whip, is classed as the junior minister for the purpose of answering, with Baroness Verma classed as the supporting whip.
The other answers I was looking for were:
1. Baroness Amos, Secretary of State for International Development (2003). I exclude Baroness Young: even though as Leader of the House she held the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, she is excluded because she was Leader of the House. Baroness Chalker, as Dave H. and JH noted, was Minister for International Development within the FCO.
2. Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Attorney-General, 2007-10).
3. Lord Mandelson, who combined the position of First Secretary of State with that of Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Lord President of the Council. His remit was so wide that it included responsibility for policy on outer space.
4. Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor 1987-1997), Lord Irvine of Lairg (1997-2003), Lord Falconer of Thoroton (2003-07).
The first two to provide correct answers are therefore Ulysses and Michael, who got in just before Rich corrected his answer to the first question. Congratulations to both of them.
I hesitate to argue with the referee in case that turns an offence justifying a yellow card into one receiving a red card, but Question One was, with respect, ambiguously worded. I was well aware that Baroness Young combined Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal – neither head of department roles – with also being Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which is a head of department role, albeit not very demanding. The question did not ask “Who was the first woman to hold a Cabinet post in the Lords as head of a Department otherwise than in combination with serving as the Leader of the House?” It stated effectively, what I already knew, that Leader of the House is not a head of Department, and asked who was the first woman to hold a Cabinet post in the Lords as head of a Department.
So I still think my Baroness Young 1982 trumps your Baroness Amos 2003!
I confess I was obviously distracted by a manifest on-screen injustice when reading Question 5. The website http://www.parliament.uk now shows:
Who are the Government spokespersons?
Cabinet Office
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Whip)
Baroness Warsi
Baroness Verma (Whip)
This implies that all three are ‘Government spokespersons’. At the time I posted my reply on Saturday 15 October, as memory serves it showed Baroness Rawlings in one of these capacities, though my memory does not tell me which. If I cannot rely on the Parliament website to tell me what’s happened the day after a fairly simple reshuffle, on whom can I rely?
But the question actually asked “Which whip in the House now answers questions on behalf of the Cabinet Office?” as opposed to using the phrase “Government spokesperson”. The latter is an ugly usage, and though it may be sexist I prefer the word ‘spokesman’ on the basis that, as it were, the male embraces the female. Reading of anyone in government benches – of any political persuasion – answering a question, reminds me of the definition of an ambassador as “an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country”, though in my opinion Lord Wallace would be the least likely peer to knowingly utter an untruth at the despatch box. An answer to a parliamentary question should embrace the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but so often the answer given seems best defined as a sententions statement aimed to achieve a political purpose.
Re the first part of your response: the Duchy of Lancaster is just that: a duchy. It’s not a government department.
There is a Chancellor of the Duchy who is accountable to the Parliament.
However, according to Schedule 2 Part 2 of the Appropriation Act 2010, the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is part of the Cabinet Office, as are, for example, the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.
Thus, neither the Duchy itself nor the technically separate Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy are government departments.
Maybe, but Lord Norton is the referee, and appeared to have ruled (his post of 16/10/2011 AT 2:12 PM) that one of my answers was wrong, clearly referring to Question 5 (though he considered my answer to Question 1 wrong because Baroness Young was also Leader of the Lords).
My argument is that Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not a sinecure – though close, unlike Lord Privy Seal which undoubtedly is a sinecure – and is a head of department role. I did not argue that department was the Duchy of Lancaster itself is a Department, which it is not, but the office of the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The fact that this is part of the Cabinet Office is neither here nor there, if the post is a Cabinet post, which in Baroness Young’s case it was. It is possible that on occasion the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and for that matter Lord Privy Seal have doubled up with other roles, and there may an occasion in the past when it was not a Cabinet post, but it seems to have been one for some decades. Who am I to disagree with the referee on this point, if indeed he sided with me on it.
It’s unclear that the Duchy of Lancaster is a government department. It describes itself as a “private landed estate.” (http://www.duchyoflancaster.com/2011/07/18/final-results-year-ended-march-31st-2011/) And although the Freedom of Information Act covers all “government departments,” the Duchy does not have a publication scheme as required by the Act. The Duchy seems to have its own unique legal status, as befits its feudal origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster
The Duchy is a very English institution worth over a third of a billion pounds, and serves to obscure rather than clarify how certain functions are funded. If it is the case that the Chancellor has rarely had any significant duties pertaining to management of the Duchy itself and is usually available as a minister without portfolio, one has to wonder how therefore in recent times his duties, administrative, financial and legal, have been said – no evidence given – to occupy an average of one day a week. That’s a long time to do next to nothing.
“The Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible for the appointment of the Steward and the Barmaster of the Barmote Courts on behalf of The Queen in right of Her Duchy” For heaven’s sake, what is this – Lilliput?
“Proceeds from Bona Vacantia in the Duchy are divided between two registered charities” Why should intestacies with no heirs in the Duchy not go to the Treasury instead of the Duchy? And why should there be two registered charities benefiting? One of these, I learn, is “the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund and is used to make small grants to associations and organisations in, or with connections to, the County Palatine. Those with strong associations with the Duchy of Lancaster are also eligible to apply.” But why owing to this historical anomaly of the treatment of John of Gaunt’s estate should one (former) county be in this strange position? Who appoints the trustees – should they not be accountable to the peoples of Lancashire rather than a minister in London? I’m glad to see that the last government began the process of unscrambling this pot-pourri, by transferring the appointments of magistrates in the Duchy to the Ministry of Justice, but clearly there’s a lot more unravelling to be done. For example, historic buildings could be transferred to English Heritage with a suitable endowment pot.
There’s only one elected councillor on the trustees, the rest are officials and, ex officio, certain Lord Lieutenants. Are any of them paid? How much, and for what? What are their terms of office (one has been in post since 1997)? I note, looking at the asset spreads, that since 2010 the the Duchy has negative current assets to the tune of maybe £25million, meaning the Duchy is borrowing against its other assets to gear up its investments. Is this wise, are the trustees taking a punt, as gearing by trustees of a charitable body is both rare and more than a little unusual?
The other charity is the The Duchy of Lancaster Jubilee Trust, constituted in 2001, Jubilee Trust, with separate defined objects, particularly to maintain the historic buildings on Duchy estates. That word ‘particularly’ is interesting, as it means this is not its exclusive role. I wonder if this may help us understand how the Jubilee jollies will be funded.
The financial statements, by the way, seem to be posted by bellpottingeremily, which sounds like our old friend of the Conservative Party Bell Pottinger. Why would a PR company be posting the financial results to 31 March 2011, and how much is their fee? Does their role come up for reappointment and is that a transparent process? I’m intrigued to see that Farrar & Co have a role as The Solicitor For the Affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster
Farrer & Co. How much is their fee? Does their role come up for reappointment and is that a transparent process? Or is there no reappointment process?
In short this is a residue of the moment when William the Conqueror simple assumed ownership of the whole of England and granted lands to his barons, keeping back many estates to fund the state which he paid for himself. As the centuries went past, funding an ever more complex state from revenues of land holdings became more difficult and some land grants were by sale rather than gift, and then taxes had to be introduced. As King Charles I found, you can lose your head if you don’t get that right. But many crown lands (or quasi-crown lands such as this Duchy) remained. Whether it is the Crown Estate itself or the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, I wonder if this should not all be unscrambled now. This doesn’t mean we end having a constitutional monarchy, I hope, but that the way the state finances itself and who owns what land should be a transparent process, not one hidden by a curtain of pageantry. If that means we start to call a minister without portfolio by his or her true job title, let’s do so. And while we are at it, let’s call a Government whip just that and not confuse matters by references to Captain of the Gentleman at Arm, Captain of The Queen’s Bodyguard of the
Yeomen of the Guard, Gentlemen of the Bedchamber, Lords snd Baronesses in Waiting, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Treasurer of HM Household, Comptroller of HM Household, Vice Chamberlain of HM Household and Junior Lords of the Treasury. I know this flummery goes back to the Bedchamber Crisis in 1839 and is intended to show that the Queen cannot simply appoint her own courtiers, but really we have got to the days when we don’t need to appoint people to posts with names that suggest they are playing cards.
Interesting quiz. I thought that, while Francis Maude is known as Minister for the Cabinet Office today, Hillary Armstrong running the same department under Tony Blair was known as Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster. Lord Macdonald held the same post in 2001-03, so it depends on whether you class running the Cabinet Office as running a department?
Another question – where is the most reliable information on what roles Lords whips and spokespersons have? This page (http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-spokes/) acknowledges Lord Wallace’s move to the Cabinet Office, but also lists him as a Home Office spokesperson, which his profile on the Parliament website suggests he no longer holds.
It would be great to know where you source the information from. Thanks.
I have the list circulated by Government to peers of ministers and whips responsible for answering for each Department. This I think it fair to say is the definitive list. That, combined with the rule that the referee’s decision is final (this is not one of those wimpish sports where one can challenge the referee), means that the answer to Question 5 is the one I indicated. Had Dan Filson got 5 correct, I may have allowed him Question 1. I’m generous like that.
Lord Norton is of course the final arbiter.
One might expect this site to be authorative:
http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/
whether you class running the Cabinet Office as running a department?
I was very surprised to find out how large the cabinet office staff is.