House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Markham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involve an exchange of labour in return for payment. Since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him.

In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, this has long been recognised in law, with limits put on the number of Ministers, of course. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 regulated the salaries payable to Ministers. As we have heard today, the 1975 Act expanded on that and on the limits on numbers.

Unpaid Ministers in the House of Lords should indeed be entitled to claim parliamentary allowances under the prevailing rules of Parliament, but they are not. As we have heard, many lose out even on the attendance allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives their labour, he or she who takes the money and he or she who benefits from the labour.

I am in no doubt that without payment—I speak as a former director of a think tank and an employer—we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords Ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all Ministers, including those in the Lords. Parliament and the Executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters.

We need to be clear about what the duties are in this Chamber. We know what they are, but the public are not aware of them. We have heard today about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is in my view very important that this work and this contract of employment—for that is what it is, even if it is not stated—should be set out. People should freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability, so I support the amendments. I also echo what was said by my noble friend Lord True, that they can denounce the payment—I add that they could give it to charity—but the principle should be implemented.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too was happy to put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, and agree with the points that my noble friends have made so far.

In contrast to the rest of the Bill, where we have been debating complex and profound elements of our constitution, this—as we have heard—is a much more common-sense amendment. It could be fixed with a single clause or even, to placate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a sunset clause attached to it if others agreed that more reform was needed. In addition to the points made about being paid fairly for the work that one does, attracting the best talent from the widest pool and adopting an approach of meritocracy, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, I will make a couple of other points.

The first is stability. Both the previous and current Governments have been able to attract people of great talent, reputation and achievement, but historically that has not always been a stable ministerial model. Stability is important for delivering and executing a Government’s policy effectively. If a Minister changes every year, that is unhelpful, and I know that a number of previous Ministers have felt unable to continue in their role, despite the unquestioned expertise that they brought to it.

As has been touched on, there is also an effectiveness point. I was fortunate to be a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education. In the Department for Education, I did pretty much all my visits on a Friday because I needed to claim my expenses—or allowance, whatever it is called—for attending your Lordships’ House. As has been noted, colleagues in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and so forth were not able to.

An article in the Times in 2023 reported a Conservative Back-Bencher—I am dying to know who it was—as saying:

“You can always find ambitious flunkies who will do it—but it is much harder to find anyone good”.


I have to say that I have never thought of myself as an ambitious flunkey, and I worked with excellent fellow Ministers. For me, being a Minister, although I was unpaid, was the highlight of my career. I would do it again like a shot, paid or unpaid, but it is not a choice we should ask potential Ministers to make.