Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I do not think it is acceptable that we ask Ministers to do their work unpaid, a burden that has fallen disproportionately on Members of this House. As we have heard, former Leaders on these Benches have worked hard to change that, but, sadly, without success. The noble Baroness the Leader is to be congratulated on the Bill we have before us.

I focus my remarks on another aspect of ministerial salaries: the absence of any provision for paternity leave, shared parental leave or adoption leave. Ministers, as officeholders, are not employees and so do not qualify for any of the normal provisions. For many years, the system for taking maternity and other parental leave was managed informally, with a period of leave agreed with the Prime Minister and cover normally provided by other Ministers within a department or a Whip stepping up. Given the limit we have on ministerial salaries, covering a colleague’s maternity leave was normally in addition to someone’s existing duties, as there were not any spare salaries to appoint a replacement.

I was particularly aware of this when I was pregnant with my daughter in 2021 and was also a Government Whip. I worried that any leave I would take would either put a heavy burden on my other colleagues in the Whips’ Office, who were all already covering at least three or four departments each, or involve asking someone to provide cover for me unpaid.

Happily, the problem was solved before Margot was born, as the inadequacies of the previous system were exposed even more clearly when the then Attorney-General, Suella Braverman, needed to take maternity leave. Because the role of Attorney-General comes with specific constitutional responsibilities that can be fulfilled only by the specific officeholder, staying in post while cover was provided by another colleague was not an option. Because of the limit to ministerial salaries, it meant that Suella faced having to resign in order to take maternity leave, which was not a very satisfactory position at all. The Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill was hastily written and passed to create the position of Minister on leave for Ministers who wished to take a period of maternity leave, the salary for which did not count towards the formal cap for salaries, freeing up the ability to appoint a replacement for that period of leave.

I was the second Minister to take up that provision, and used it again when I had my son Max in 2024. It was a very welcome step forward but it was acknowledged at the time that there were areas that the Act failed to address. There is still no formal provision for paternity leave, shared parental leave or adoption leave, with these still being handled through informal agreement and cover.

It could be argued that this is less of an issue for paternity leave, given that the statutory entitlement is only two weeks, so easier to cover informally. Those who followed the Employment Rights Act through this House will know that I am of the view that two weeks is woefully inadequate and something that I hope the Government’s ongoing review of parental leave will address. Nevertheless, even at two weeks, the current system does not address the fact that if you are an officeholder with formal constitutional responsibilities attached, it simply is not possible for someone else to cover them, even for a short period. The current system also does not address the fact that, even though take-up across the country is low, other fathers have the opportunity to take a longer period of leave via shared parental leave.

Another quirk of the system is that even a Minister who is a new mother, with the ability to be appointed as Minister on leave, does not have the ability for their partner to take up any shared parental leave. Given the demands of a ministerial role, including, as we have heard, long days and—often in this place—very late nights, this is a particularly impactful oversight. The ability to succeed in these roles is often down to the long-suffering and unseen partners who support Ministers. Under the current system, unlike for other couples, a Minister’s partner does not have the ability to take any more time to care for their new baby than the existing two weeks of paternity leave. That is due simply to the fact that their partner is a Minister and therefore an officeholder rather than an employee. I think most people would see that as an unintended consequence rather than a deliberate policy choice.

There is also no provision equivalent to adoption leave, which, unlike paternity leave, is available in ordinary circumstances for up to a year to one parent in an adoptive couple. Finally, there is an important omission when it comes to the provision of sick leave. This was something that affected my friend and former colleague James Brokenshire when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and was diagnosed with lung cancer.

The areas that I have highlighted were unfinished business from the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act five years ago. After the passage of that Act, the Government committed to returning to this at a later date. I had hoped that this Bill was that date but, as it is a money Bill, we cannot address the gaps in today’s debate in our House. I appreciate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House finding time to discuss these issues with me yesterday. I know she is committed to ensuring that we can benefit from the talents of all Members in this House in ministerial office, regardless of background or family circumstance. I would appreciate hearing from her what plans the Government have to address the gaps I have spoken of today.