Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Excerpts
2nd reading & Committee negatived & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th April 2026

(1 day, 11 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, as someone relatively new to the House I am very struck by how hard Ministers work in this House, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord True. Having spent 20 or more years working with Governments of different persuasions and seeing Ministers in the Lords, I always think that the Lords Ministers often work harder and get less credit for the work that they do.

I will make three further points in support of this Bill. First, I am honoured to follow both the noble Lord, Lord True, and my noble friend Lady Smith. I congratulate them on the speeches they have made but also on the collaborative approach they have taken to this issue. As a result, I am confident that, should we pass the Bill—I hope we will—it will bring benefits both to this House and to the Government long into the future.

On a previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord True, set out three principles, which I will repeat because each is important. There should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work—and this fits with how hard Ministers in the Lords work. There should be equal treatment of Ministers in both Houses, which is also an important point. Perhaps most importantly, nobody should be prevented by lack of means from taking on the role of a Minister. My noble friend Lady Smith totally supported those three principles and I do too.

Secondly, I emphasise the last of those three points as particularly important. If, regardless of means, we want the younger Members of this House to be able to take on ministerial responsibility, this Bill is essential. Those of us who are—how should I put it?—later in a career are more likely to have a pension or other retirement income than our younger colleagues. I look at the cohort of young noble friends with whom I was privileged to join the Government Benches in January, and see evident competence, commitment, passion and talent. I would not want either the Government or the country to be deprived of the contribution that any one of them might make as Ministers simply because the role was unremunerated. A similar case no doubt has been made in the past, and the noble Lord, Lord True, says he might have made it in relation to all sides of the House in the past and the future.

Thirdly, there is an encouraging precedent. Some noble Lords may be aware that I have a modest sideline in medieval history. In 1406, Henry IV was troubled on many fronts. There was a standoff between his Government and Parliament over both his reform agenda and his tax demands. There was anxiety about religious extremism; at that time, it was not the IRGC but the Lollards. Then, as now, English shipping was under threat in an economically crucial narrow strait, the English Channel rather than Hormuz. Then, as now too, there were expensive wars in two locations that were distracting the Government. Finally, according to the Speaker of the day, Sir John Tiptoft, there were some “rascals” in the King’s Household. To use Barbara Tuchman’s evocative phrase, we sometimes find that we are looking in a “distant mirror”.

As part of his response, Henry IV drew heavily on talent in the Lords. He strengthened his council and decided that all the newly appointed Ministers in his council should be paid. Professor Given-Wilson, one of our most eminent contemporary medieval historians, concluded that this new council was “remarkably successful”. After the introduction of pay for these Ministers, 1408, was, he said,

“financially speaking, the most orderly of the reign”.

The economy was turning a corner.

The principal case set out by both the preceding speakers in favour of this overdue reform is overwhelmingly strong. Meanwhile, with this reform, a glance in that “distant mirror” suggests that, perhaps in spite of everything, we can look forward to positive financial and economic developments in due course. I support the Bill.