Lord David Cameron should be questioned by MPs in the House of Commons, according to a report from the chamber’s procedure committee.
Questions about how elected politicians could hold the appointed foreign secretary account have abounded since he was given the job by Rishi Sunak in November 2023.
The committee has now recommended that Lord Cameronshould be able to be questioned by MPs in the Commons, after concerns he would not be able to answer questions from politicians representing the public, especially at a time with various foreign crises.
But, much as having a senior minister in the Lords is somewhat reminiscent of a bygone era, the proposal put forward still refuses to break some parliamentary traditions.
The committee says that Lord Cameron should answer questions not from the despatch box, as MPs do, but from an area of the Commons chamber known as the bar.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
Image: The House of Commons bar can be seen as the white line in the foreground. Pic: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor
This is a white line – and sometimes a physical bar – that marks the official entry of the chamber, and which guests and visitors cannot go past.
The report notes that up until the early 1800s, it was common for many witnesses, including lords, to give evidence from the bar.
Advertisement
This included the likes of First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Melville in 1805 and the Duke of Wellington in 1814.
But this became less popular with the advent of select committees. The last non-MP to appear at the bar was journalist John Junor in 1957, who was asked to apologise for an article he had written.
In the examples in the 19th century, peers were given a chair to sit on, but had to stand when answering questions.
The committee suggested this plan of action, as having ministers in the Lords use the despatch box like an MP “would risk blurring the boundaries between the two Houses”.
It also rejected ideas like having Lord Cameron answer questions in other parts of parliament, for example committee rooms or Westminster Hall, as they are too small.
These venues would have limited the number of MPs able to question Lord Cameron – and the committee believes “it is important that all MPs can participate in scrutiny of Lords secretaries of state”.
They added that the scrutinising of Lord Cameron should take place as often as all other secretaries of state.
Alex Burghart, who is a junior minister in the Cabinet Office, told the committee that having lords appear in the Commons may lead to the normalisation of senior ministers being appointed in the lords – and maybe even prime ministers.
Normally, ministers in the Lords are only junior in their department.
As such, the committee made clear in its recommendations that the suggestions for Lord Cameron “are aimed at addressing the issue the house is currently faced with and should not set a precedent for the future”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:11
Cameron’s shock return to frontline politics
The Lords would need to vote to allow Lord Cameron to appear in the Commons, and the committee suggested that MPs vote on a motion allowing him to appear in their chamber until the next election.
As part of their report, the Committee invited all MPs to submit evidence.
They received 131 responses.
Of these, 88.5% wanted secretaries of state in the Lords to be more accountable to the Commons.
The most popular venue suggested by these MPs was select committees – 69.4% – followed by Westminster Hall – 68.5% – and then the Commons – 63.9%.
More than half (53.3%) wanted Lord Cameron to appear every month, while 32.4% thought he should answer questions only when needed for specific business.
In the additional comments section, various MPs said secretaries of state or those in senior government roles should not sit in the Lords.
However, some MPs seemed less keen on MPs asking questions of Lord Cameron – saying that Andrew Mitchell, who is a junior Foreign Office minister in the Commons, can do a good enough job.
They also raised concerns about the separation of the two houses.
And one MP wrote: “This is none of our business – which is why you have had nearly zero response.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Dame Karen Bradley, chair of the procedure committee, said: “As elected representatives, members of the House of Commons have a duty to question the foreign secretary. This is especially pressing in light of the crises in the Middle East and Ukraine.
“The committee has considered various mechanisms of scrutiny and taken the views of members, while bearing in mind the practicalities of each proposal.
“We have ultimately concluded that all MPs should be afforded the opportunity to question secretaries of state who sit in the House of Lords, with the Commons chamber providing the best forum to do so.
“We hope the government implements our proposals as quickly as possible, so that MPs can best scrutinise all secretaries of state on behalf of their constituents.”
A government spokesperson said: “We will carefully consider the committee’s report and will respond in due course.”
An MP who decided until recently to “never speak” about the abuse he suffered as a child has shared his harrowing story so that “no kid has to go through” what he did.
Josh Babarinde describes being physically abused by his mother’s former partner from the age of four, and remembers crying himself to sleep under the covers “hearing shouts, hearing screams and things smash”.
He says he became hypervigilant growing up and felt safe at school but “like he was treading on eggshells” in his own home.
The Eastbourne MP, who is also the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, says his experience has driven his politics. He is calling on the government to stop abusers “slipping through the net” and being released from prison early.
Opening up about his story in his twenties was “difficult” but looking back, Mr Babarinde says, he is “so proud of the resilience of that kid”.
The MP recently found his childhood diary containing Star Wars drawings alongside an entry he wrote from the bathroom. The diary, he recalls, wrote: “I’m really going to try to go (to the toilet) but I can’t. Oh my goodness, I’m gonna be in so much trouble, I’m going to get smacked so hard.”
Then an entry five minutes later: “I still haven’t done anything, I’m going to be in so much trouble.”
More from Politics
He says reading the entry reminded him of how “helpless” he felt.
“It was mortifying,” he says. “An abuser takes away your sense of self-worth.”
Image: Mr Babarinde says he wants the government to ‘properly recognise domestic abuse crimes in the law’
The 32-year-old is calling on the government to change the law to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence. The change would mean, he argues, abusers can no longer effectively disguise their history under other offences like assault.
He says the Ministry of Justice’s early release scheme, which has seen thousands of prisoners released early to ease overcrowding, has failed to exclude domestic abusers despite government promises because there is no formal categorisation for offenders.
It is impossible, he argues, to know exactly how many domestic abusers are in prison currently so perpetrators are “slipping through the net” on early release.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:39
January: Rising violence against women and girls
Mr Babarinde says the uncertainty means victims and survivors are not able to prepare for their abuser’s release.
He said: “They might need to move house or move their kids to a new school, shop in different places. All of these kind of things are so important, and so that’s why that commitment the government made was so important.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Our thoughts are with all victims of domestic abuse – it takes immense courage to speak out.
“We are building a justice system that puts victims first – strengthening support, increasing transparency, and giving people the confidence to come forward and be heard.”
In common with many parents across the country, here’s a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).
Me: “So it’s 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both.”
Daughter: “Ummmm, I want to watch TV.”
Me: “That’s fine, but it’s bed after that, you can’t do a jigsaw as well.”
Fast-forward 15 minutes.
Me: “Right, TV off now please, bedtime.”
(Pause)
Daughter: “I want to do a jigsaw.”
Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:36
Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma
That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.
In essence: you’ve had your welfare U-turn, so there’s no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.
As an aside – and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society – yes, I hear you, and that’s part of my point.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:11
Welfare U-turn ‘has come at cost’
For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.
So what can be done?
Well, the government could change the rules.
Altering the fiscal rules is – and will likely remain – an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour’s proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:31
Welfare: ‘Didn’t get process right’ – PM
A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.
Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.
That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don’t really understand what this prime minister stands for – and by extension, what all these “difficult decisions” are in aid of.
The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
16:02
Is Corbyn an existential risk to Labour?
The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client’s cash away from the prying eyes of the state.
Or, of course, they could just leave – as many are doing already.
In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.
If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.
And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
The UK has re-established diplomatic ties with Syria, David Lammy has said, as he made the first visit to the country by a British minister for 14 years.
The foreign secretary visited Damascus and met with interim president Ahmed al Sharaa, also the leader of the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and foreign minister Asaad al Shaibani.
In a statement, Mr Lammy said a “stable Syria is in the UK’s interests” and added: “I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable progress Syrians have made in rebuilding their lives and their country.
“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people.
“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians.”
Image: Foreign Secretary David Lammy with Syria’s interim president Ahmed al Sharaa in Damascus. Pic: X / @DavidLammy
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also announced a £94.5m support package for urgent humanitarian aid and to support the country’s long-term recovery, after a number of British sanctions against the country were lifted in April.
While HTS is still classified as a proscribed terror group, Sir Keir Starmer said last year that it could be removed from the list.
The Syrian president’s office also said on Saturday that the president and Mr Lammy discussed co-operation, as well as the latest developments in the Middle East.
Since Assad fled Syria in December, a transitional government headed by Mr al Sharaa was announced in March and a number of western countries have restored ties.
In May, US President Donald Trump said the United States would lift long-standing sanctions on Syria and normalise relations during a speech at the US-Saudi investment conference.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
From May: Trump says US will end sanctions for Syria
He said he wanted to give the country “a chance at peace” and added: “There is a new government that will hopefully succeed.
“I say good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”