The ministerial reshuffle which took place July 22 left the House of Lords unrepresented in the cabinet for the first time in its history, creating a widespread sense of outrage in the upper house. Alistair Lexden outlined possible solutions to the problem in a letter to The Times published on July 31:
Dear Sir
Quite rightly, the House of Lords supported Baroness Boothroyd by a large majority yesterday evening (“ Boothroyd hits at Lords demotion”, July 28). As we were reminded during the debate, the summary removal of the Lord Chancellor under the last government cost the Lords one of its traditional cabinet seats. That underlines the importance of the remaining historic seat.
Throughout the 19th century the Leader of the Lords was either the Prime Minister or one of his closest colleagues. The Duke of Wellington, who held the position under Sir Robert Peel from 1841 to 1846, defined its principal function as “the avoidance of dispute and division with the lower house”. A bicameral parliament is unlikely to serve the interests of the nation effectively in all circumstances if one of its two houses is unrepresented in the full cabinet to which disputes will always be brought.
This grave constitutional issue must now be permanently resolved. A new report by the Lords all-party Select Committee on the Constitution, of which I am a member, has suggested three remedies, all of which would require a short, simple amendment to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The limit on the total number of cabinet posts for which salaries can be paid could be raised from 21 to 22---or, perhaps more attractively, one of the existing 21 could be explicitly reserved for either a member of the House or for its Leader. For those with a sense of history the last will seem the best.
Yours faithfully
Lord Lexden
House of Lords