1

*CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY*

Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Response to Bns Boothroyd motion re: status of the Leader of the Lords
28
th
July 2014

My Lords, this has been a short but powerful debate and the Prime Minister can be in no
doubt about the strength of feeling in this House. I say the Prime Minister rather than the
Nobel Baroness, the Leader, because this motion and the weighty arguments that have
been made are not against or about her, they are about the office that she occupies, or
should occupy. Like other Noble Lords I wish again to emphasise that I have full confidence
in the Noble Baroness and I know that she will continue to do a splendid job. But I very
much regret that she has had such a baptism of fire.

I am grateful to the Constitution Committee for their swift, excellent and informative report.
The Committee is right, of course, not to make recommendations but the information they
provide and their conclusions are invaluable. I was interested to learn, for example, that the
current Cabinet Manual states that Cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body of
government and that Erskine May, that Parliamentary bible, describes the Leader of the
House of Lords as a member of the Cabinet.

As the Noble Baroness, Baroness Boothroyd noted: the Committee notes that The Leader
may often have to give unpalatable advice to ministerial colleagues about the chances of
their legislation passing the House, or the time it will take. It goes on to say that In such
matters the Leader needs authority.

Having been both a Minister attending Cabinet, as Chief Whip, and a full member of the
Cabinet I can say to Noble Lords that there is a difference and the Committee is absolutely
right. To be a full member of the Cabinet gives one authority and the confidence that goes
with that authority. The confidence to disagree with those who have greater experience
2

and who because they are members of the House of Commons do not understand the
impact that their legislation will have in the Lords. It was sometimes not a comfortable
position to be in, but I always did what I had to do on behalf of this House.

And the role of the Leader of the Lords in the Cabinet is distinctive and different to other
members of the Cabinet. I had the good fortune for some time to have two Noble Friends
who were also members of the Cabinet, but I was the one who rightly had to take the lead
in defending the position of this House. I am glad that my own Party recognises the
distinction; and it is absolutely clear that we will reinstate the position of the Leader to its
right place as a full member of the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister in his (much quoted) letter of 22
nd
July to the Noble Lord, Lord
MacGregor, does not mention cabinet correspondence and I would be grateful if the Noble
Lady could say whether or not she is included in the circulation of all Cabinet
correspondence which of course results in much decision making? I very much hope that
she is, in which case I wonder if this is or has been the norm for all those attending Cabinet?
If it is an innovation as a result of the current situation and if all those now attending
Cabinet receive all the papers, it surely must have an additional cost implication. One might
even ask if the costs involved over ten months could add up to the rest of the salary that
should go with the Office of the Leader.

In relation to salaries, my Lords, what one might call the rate for the job, the Noble Lady
was surely right to refuse to have her salary topped up by the Conservative Party. She is,
has been said, a woman of integrity. However, I wonder if the Government would comply
with the Equal Pay Audit Regulations that were discussed in Parliament this afternoon? It
cannot be right that a female Leader of the Lords is paid less than her male counterpart was,
and it is a terrible example for the women of this country. And this from a Prime Minister
who we were told was reshuffling his Cabinet with the aim of promoting women and
promoting equality.

Was it by accident or design that the post of Leader of the Lords was downgraded? The
Prime Minister tells us that it was an anomaly, a temporary necessity but my Lords, the Rt
3

Hon Gentleman had a choice about who should be in his Cabinet, and he chose not to
include the Leader of the Lords. I have to say that it feels very much as though this House is
being treated with contempt.

And that feeling might well be strengthened later this week when I suspect that a new list of
Peers will be published. We all want to give a warm welcome to new colleagues, but to
have a House of more than 800 cannot be right. Patronage before principles.

My Lords, Mr Camerons decision to downgrade the position of Leader of the Lords means
that the Office is diminished. And by diminishing the Office we are all diminished. I
therefore very much hope that if the Noble Baroness, Baroness Boothroyd, decides to seek
the opinion of the House, Noble Lords on all sides of the House will chose to send a clear
message to the Prime Minister by joining her in the division lobby.

ENDS