The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:†
Atkins,
Charlotte (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
(Lab) †
Baird,
Vera (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs)Clapham,
Mr. Michael (Barnsley, West and Penistone)
(Lab) †
Foster,
Mr. Michael (Worcester)
(Lab) Grogan,
Mr. John (Selby)
(Lab) †
Hamilton,
Mr. David (Midlothian)
(Lab) Howarth,
David (Cambridge)
(LD) †
Hughes,
Simon (North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD) †
Jones,
Mr. David (Clwyd, West)
(Con) †
Kirkbride,
Miss Julie (Bromsgrove)
(Con) †
Linton,
Martin (Battersea)
(Lab) †
Moon,
Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend)
(Lab) †
Moran,
Margaret (Luton, South)
(Lab) †
Mullin,
Mr. Chris (Sunderland, South)
(Lab) Tyrie,
Mr. Andrew (Chichester)
(Con) Watkinson,
Angela (Upminster)
(Con) †
Wright,
Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con) Eliot Wilson, Olivia Davidson,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Third
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationWednesday
14 June
2006[Mr.
Roger Gale in the
Chair]Draft Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No. 3) Order 20062.30
pm The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Vera
Baird): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Lord Chancellor (Transfer of
Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No. 3) Order
2006. It is terrific
to serve on a Committee before you, Mr. Gale. I am not unused
to doing that, but I am unused to it in my current role. I am pleased
that someone as experienced as you are and whom I know so well in this
guise is here to
help. The
order transfers functions, but the most important parts of it are
probably the supplementary provisions, which deal with the arrangements
for providing a salary and pension for the Speaker of the House of
Lords. It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of some of the
background to the
proposal. The Lord
Chancellor, by way of a long-standing convention, sits as the Speaker
of the House of Lords, and a proportion of his nominal salary
entitlement is paid in respect of his duties as such. The current Lord
Chancellor chooses to receive only the salary of a Lords Cabinet
Minister. That includes no allowance for the speakership of the House
of
Lords. During
the passage of the Constitutional Reform Bill, the Government’s
original proposals, which were to abolish the office of Lord
Chancellor, were modified, but the separation of the various powers
that he had historically held went forward, so the judicial, executive
and other functions were separated. The judicial functions were
transferred to the Lord Chief Justice. The office of Lord Chancellor
was retained only as a ministerial office—the Secretary of State
for Constitutional Affairs under another name. The Constitutional
Reform Act 2005, in section 18 and schedule 6, also made arrangements
to separate the offices of Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of
Lords, and any enactments that allocated functions to the Lord
Chancellor that were clearly functions of the Speaker of the House of
Lords were amended to refer to the Speaker, rather than to the Lord
Chancellor. In
recognition of that, the Lords agreed on 12 July 2005 that they should
make arrangements for electing their own Speaker, separate from the
office of Lord Chancellor, and they set up a Select Committee to make
recommendations for the detailed arrangements. Most of the
recommendations were about matters internal to the House of Lords, such
as the Speaker’s authority over the conduct of debate; they are
not relevant to us in this House or to this order.
The Select Committee
recommended, and the House of Lords agreed, that the Senior Salaries
Review Body should be invited to make recommendations about the salary
and pension of the Speaker of the House of Lords. The SSRB did that in
March 2006, saying that it proposed provisional arrangements that it
might revise in the light of evidence gathering during its next full
review of parliamentary pay and allowances, or after any other reform
of the House of Lords. It proposed an annual salary of £101,668,
which is the same as that of a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords.
It said that the salary should be subject to annual uprating on 1
April. It proposed a pension in accordance with the normal pension
scheme provisions for Ministers, MPs and the Chairman and Principal
Deputy Chairman of Committees. It did not include the Lords Speaker in
the special arrangements that exist for the pensions of the Lord
Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of
Commons. Their
lordships approved that recommendation on 2 May, and this
order gives effect to it. It does not create the new office of Lords
Speaker; it is for the other place to do that through amendment of its
Standing Orders. This order is made under the Constitutional Reform Act
2005, using the powers in sections 19, 140(4)(b) and 143 to make
transfers of functions and consequential and transitional provisions
necessary for the proper implementation of the
Act. The
order transfers three functions from the Lord Chancellor to the new
Lords Speaker. The first is the power to recall the House of Lords to
consider emergency orders made under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
That Act was not enacted when the Constitutional Reform Bill was
published, and it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to amend
the CRB to include it, which is why it is dealt with by this
order. The second
function is that of being an ex officio Church Commissioner. The
provision will ensurethat the Church Commissioners continue to
have anex officio representative in the House of Lords. The
Speaker of the House of Commons is also an ex officio Church
Commissioner. The
third function is the power to nominate members to the Statutory
Instruments Reference Committee. For those who are not familiar with
the Committee, its main concern is with the proper arrangements for the
printing, publication and numbering of statutory instruments.
Schedule 2 deals with the
pension and salary arrangements for the Lords Speaker. Paragraph 1 will
separate the pension of the Lord Chancellor from that of the Lords
Speaker. Paragraph 3(2) has the same practical consequence in relation
to the Speaker’s salary. Paragraph 3(3) will insert the Lord
Speaker into the relevant provision of the Ministerial and other
Salaries Act 1975—it will put this new office into the list.
Some of the brighter or more alert members of the Committee will have
noted that the figure in the salary provision is £103,701 and
not £102,685 because the first upgrading has taken place before
the office has been taken up, on 1 April. That is why there is that
engaging
distinction. Paragraph
5 will let the Lord Speaker join the parliamentary pension fund and to
receive a pension from it. The Leader of the House of Commons needs,
in due course, to bring forward regulations to put the detailed
arrangements in place. Paragraphs 6 to 8 are to do with severance
payments and allowances. The order deals with issues that are every
much the business of the other place, which has considered them in
detail and approved the policy that underlines them at each step. This
statutory instrument was approved there on Monday. Its Members have
considered the functions that they want the Speaker to have, the
respect in which they expect him to be held and the level of
remuneration that they think is consistent with those decisions. In
accordance with the normal arrangements for paying salaries to public
officer-holders, the Lords Speaker will be paid from money provided by
Parliament. He or she will also be a member of the parliamentary
pension scheme. Those provisions are both unlike those that apply to
Mr. Speaker. The
Government think that it is entirely correct that the Lords Speaker
should be paid by money provided by Parliament, which ultimately
approves all public expenditure. It puts us in a slightly delicate
position as this House, because of its financial privileges,
effectively has a veto of the salary arrangements of the other House
even though those arrangements might legitimately be regarded as
internal matters for the other place. I urge the Committee to respect
the autonomy of the other place and to approve the order to give effect
to the policy that that House has decided that it wants to adopt of
providing its own Speaker, something that this House has enjoyed since
its earliest days.
2.37
pm Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I do not propose to
detain the Committee for long, but it is worth reflecting on the fact
that the deliberations of the Committee might, in years to come,
feature as a footnote in history.
As we have heard, since time
immemorial the Lord Chancellor has presided from the Woolsack over the
proceedings of the other place, a function that derives not from
statute but from long prescription. With the making and implementation
of the order, that historic role will cease. I am sure that all of us
who have visited the other place from time to time to observe its
proceedings have been impressed with the good order and general high
levels of courtesy that prevail there. It is no secret that my party
opposed the change in the role of the Lord Chancellor and has expressed
some concern about what will replace it.
Lord Strathclyde observed in
the debate on 12 July of last
year: “Many
fear that once you elevate one Peer above the rest, however slightly,
to decide on who may speak next, to enforce time limits, or to
be—in that insidious phrase—the guardian of the
Companion, that Peer will extend the amount of intervention. Before
long, we will have appeals to the Chair, points of order, and more of
the characteristics that disfigure the other
place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July
2005; Vol. 673, c.
1004.] Reading the transcript of
the debates over the proposals that culminate in the order that will be
made today, it is clear that peers from all parties are anxious that
the principle of self-regulation should continue. The new Lords Speaker
will, we hope, preside over the proceedings of the other place with a
light touch.
Much, of course, will depend on the character of the
individual who is elected by their lordships to fulfil the role of the
first Lords Speaker, as he or she will undoubtedly set a pattern for
his or her successors. As you know, Mr. Gale, the
Conservative party has a high regard for the independent spirit
traditionally displayed—sometimes to the embarrassment and
annoyance of Governments of both political hues—by the other
place. Therefore, although we regret the passing of the Lord
Chancellor’s role as presiding officer, we fully recognise the
important function that the new Lords Speaker will play in the
maintenance of parliamentary democracy in this country, and we wish him
or her
well. 2.40
pm Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I support
the order, and shall deal with two relevant points. First, and most
controversial outside the House, is the salary and pension of the Lords
Speaker. My noble Friend Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in
the Lords, and others, took the simple and straightforward view that
the issue should be referred to the appropriate salaries review body.
It was, and that body has made its recommendation on the salary and
pension. As I
understand it, the proposal and uprating follows exactly the Senior
Salaries Review Body recommendation. That seems the right way to
proceed. If we are to have a body to advise on such things as
ministerial, Cabinet, prime ministerial and MPs’ salaries,
logically that job in respect of the Lords Speaker should be given to
the SSRB. I make no issue about it; the body has given its advice on
the basis of the new job specification resulting from the transfer of
the Lord Chancellor’s functions to the new Lords Speaker when he
or she takes up the post next month, and it appears entirely
appropriate. I gather
that the race is hotly contested, with nine runners; I have not read
the canvassing rules, but the candidates must produce a manifesto of 75
words, which would be a discipline for us all, especially political
parties. However things turn out, the role will be important, and I
guess it will evolve appropriately.
My party supported the division
back into component parts and the legislation that created a supreme
court, removed the political component from the senior judiciary and
made sure that the Lord Chief Justice was appointed as the senior judge
who would lead, as he now does. That legislation also separated the
Cabinet job of being Minister with responsibility for justice from the
speakership of the Lords. That was an odd historical anomaly that did
not appear appropriate in a modern constitutional settlement, and we
welcome that very last brick in the wall that makes the final
separation.
As the
Committee knows, the title of Lord Chancellor was retained as a
compromise; several other old titles carry on in the modern Cabinet and
other jobs and that compromise seems reasonable. I hope that, in due
course, the last bit of the process—the name change—will
happen and that there will be something called the ministry of justice
or the department of justice, because it is important that people
understand that it is a function of Government to deliver justice, and
for Parliament to seek to support them in so doing.
My
other substantive point was the anomaly that I had spotted and noticed
and which was spotted by colleagues in the Lords when Baroness Amos
introduced this order for debate. One of the three transferred
functions, as the Minister rightly told us, is that of Church
Commissioner. There was a debate, during which my noble Friend Lord
Tordoff raised questions. My noble Friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno
also raised questions about the appropriateness of whoever became Lords
Speaker becoming one of the Church Commissioners for the Church of
England. I am aware
that, historically, such roles depended on denomination or faith. Until
recently, there were restrictions; for a long time, the Lord
Chancellor, the Attorney-General and other office holders had to be
Anglicans. They could certainly not be Roman Catholics. Lord Rawlinson
of Ewell, I think, was the first Roman Catholic holder of his post, and
rules had to be changed to accommodate that. Clearly, nobody should be
precluded by denomination, faith or lack of it from being Speaker in
the House of Lords.
The position is a matter of
election, in which every candidate should be entitled to take part.
However, I should flag up that although it is not an appropriate
subject for this Committee, the role of the Church Commissioners needs
to be modernised. For as long as the Church of England is the state
Church in England there will be a link with Parliament. I believe in
disestablishment and I will continue to argue for that, but I accept
that there will be a link.
I am not sure that the
appropriate format for the Church Commissioners is to have lots of
people,ex officio, who may not have a particular interest,
expertise or the time to do the job. The Prime Minister is, ex officio,
a Church Commissioner. There is a list of them such as the Lord
President of the Council, the Home Secretary and the Speaker of the
House of Commons. Rather bizarrely, the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport is also one. That is not a personal slight on the
Secretary of State, but I was surprised to see her name on the list.
Then there are the more obvious candidates such as the archbishops of
York and Canterbury. I think that it is time that there were an
appropriate group of people. Yes there is seniority and I understand
that there may be a good argument for having someone in the Lords and
somebody in the Commons to provide the link for as long as there is an
established Church.
If the link between the two
Houses of Parliament and the Church of England is to continue, it needs
to be used. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the Minister of
State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and
learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and I had a
battle the other day with the Church Commissioners over the sale of
some of their properties just the other side of the river. It concerned
some social housing, the legacy of Octavia Hill, which the Church of
England assets committee sold to the highest bidder against the wishes
of all the occupants. There is a political element sometimes to the
activities of the Church of England. We should not forget
that. The Church of
England ought to have people who are sensitive to the mood of the
politicians in this place
and who can feed back their cross-party views. I hope that will be on
the agenda. I simply register that I hope in due course the Lords
Speaker, whoever it is, together perhaps with our Speaker, Chairmen and
other Government Ministers and Church Commissioners, might be willing
to look at this matter again and to try to change that bit of the
structure and, I hope, have a slightly more realistic relationship
between Parliament and the Church of England. With that caveat, the
order is clearly acceptable and I congratulate the hon. and learned
Lady on her first ministerial outing in Committee. She knows that she
is suited to her new job and that we welcome her. I hope that she
always has enjoyable Committee sittings but that occasionally she will
have a much harder time than she has had
today. 2.48
pm Vera
Baird: I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for their
support for the order. I shall deal with some of the points about the
Church Commissioners. I do not want to stray too far, but the main
complaint in the Lords was that the decision to include the transfer of
the Church Commissioners’ role from Lord Chancellor to Lords
Speaker was quite late in the day. It was, however, done at the request
of the Anglican Church, which perceived, perhaps at the last minute,
that under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor could
be in the Commons from now on and so there would not be an ex officio
Church Commissioner in the Lords. That is not to be
wished. Just to
complete the picture, the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned that the Home Secretary is
currently a Church Commissioner. He has been persuaded to give that up
because it is still necessary for the Lord Chancellor to be one because
he has the responsibility for Church-state relations. Consequently, as
this transfer of functions order is about giving jobs to the new
Speaker, the Lord Chancellor’s role goes across, and it will no
doubt be my tedious job to move the Home Secretary’s role as a
Church Commissioner across to the Lord Chancellor in due course. One
can see the mischief that the Church of England wanted to patch up
quickly, namely that there would be noex officio Church
Commissioner in the Lords. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport
is probably involved because of the heritage buildings and nothing more
than that. I am
grateful for the Committee’s support. I know that the
Conservative party opposed, which I thought bizarre, the logical split
between Cabinet Minister on the one hand and Speaker in the Lords. How
we have managed to let history take us so far and not split those two
functions until today I do not know. What will replace it is exactly
the Lords Speaker and, although the Conservatives were not in favour of
this change, I see that they have got some nominees and no doubt they
will tell their man to use a light touch when he is elected, if he
is. Question put
and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and
Supplementary Provisions) (No. 3) Order
2006. Adjourned
accordingly at ten minutes to Three
o’clock.
|
