Business of the House

Motion on Standing Orders

Moved by

That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the order paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 July to enable the motion standing in the name of Lord True to be taken before the motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, this is an unusual Motion. The last example—which was much more far-reaching and prescriptive—was a Motion personally introduced by the Leader of the House in 2019. Frankly, in many ways, this is an undesirable Motion. It should not be left to any other party in this House to ensure that time is given for a Government to be held to account—a point made vehemently by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is the duty of a Leader of the House—who, we are all very pleased to see, survived a vicious night of the long knives in the Labour Party—to enable scrutiny of government policies. While the noble Baroness has survived, may I say how sad we are to see so many outstanding Ministers in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Timpson; the noble Lord, Lord Livermore; the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who, as we have just heard, was felled with his whole department; the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; and so many others—leaving the Government? We thank them all for their service to the House and to this country.

Before anyone gets too excited about all this, let me tell the House that all this Motion asks for is that the new Government should allow a short take-note debate tomorrow to answer to Parliament on their policies. There will be no vote and nobody’s holiday will be interfered with, whatever the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms might tell people afterwards. It would be an opportunity for the Government to set out the policies of which the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has just said they are so proud. If the Leader of the House tells the House that she will give adequate time for debate and scrutiny in Parliament on the new Government’s strategy and all their new announcements tomorrow, and indeed all this week, then I can withdraw my Motion.

These are unprecedented circumstances. Only once before in the whole of British history, in 1963, has a Prime Minister taken office having not put himself before the British people at the previous general election—and, what is more, during a recess of the House of Commons. All recent Prime Ministers taking office in similar circumstances have made themselves available to Parliament. Contrast that with the new Prime Minister’s convenient entry to No. 10 on the first working day after the Commons had adjourned for the Summer Recess, and the unseemly finagling of changing Commons business to deprive the Opposition of our scheduled Opposition day debate, for fear that we might vote for the House of Commons to sit this week and hold the Prime Minister to account. Having suppressed scrutiny by the Commons last week, is this now to be followed by imposing a Whip—I thought we had heard that Mr Burnham did not like Whips—to suppress scrutiny of the Government in this place? It looks as though the Prime Minister is bending over backwards to avoid telling Parliament what his plans are.

Hear, hear!

Yes, but where is the money coming from? Noble Lords opposite are not so noisy now. Can the Leader shed any light on all this? Can she say which of this list are commitments and which are just backstairs smooching of the media and, it seems, some Back-Benchers? After all, she was there in Cabinet this morning.

The Ministerial Code is unequivocal. It states:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”.

Why has that not been happening? We need Statements here and we need answers. I ask the Leader, on behalf of the whole House, to ensure that that happens. Where, for example, is a Statement on ending rough sleeping, which has actually risen in Manchester in the last few years? The media were told this morning that the Government will pause VAT on electricity—ironically, by using our Brexit freedoms. I thought Mr Burnham wanted to end those freedoms. Why was this not announced in Parliament before the media were briefed? We have not seen even Written Statements on these announcements. I gather that one on VAT was issued moments ago, while we were considering the PNQ. I wonder how many Members of this House have had the opportunity to see it. I echo what my noble friend Lord Deben said.

I say again: the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to come to Parliament to make a Statement regarding new policy announcements. By the way, the former Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place, was summarily and harshly sacked, along with many other friends of Sir Keir Starmer. Will the Chagos Bill now be buried? In that debate in April, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, declared

Sir Ed Davey, no less, said that the VAT pause was not the best way to help people and does not go far enough. Well, we can discuss that: is this therefore not an issue for questioning and a short debate, an opportunity for noble Lords to put their point of view? Where is the explanation of how this will be paid for? The press have been told it will be paid for by scrapping digital ID. Well, good riddance to that, but the former Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Darren Jones, said this morning that the digital ID programme was unfunded. He sat in Cabinet with the noble Baroness until last Sunday morning, running the Prime Minister’s Office; he should know whether it is funded or not. So how do the numbers add up? Should your Lordships not be able to question that in a short take-note debate tomorrow, which is all I suggest?

“scrutiny and accountability … those are issues that these Benches have focused on relentlessly”.—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 263.]

We are told that more policy announcements will be made to the media this week. Will the noble Baroness ensure full compliance with the Ministerial Code and see that each one is also made here “in the first instance”? In the absence of that, agreeing this Motion would grant your Lordships time tomorrow to question and debate what the Prime Minister says what, I repeat, are planned to be the biggest political and economic changes for 40 years. We are a House of scrutiny and I think it is reasonable that while we are sitting, we should be afforded a modest time to do our work and question the Government. Surely it would be a quite extraordinary position for the Government to order their Back-Benchers to vote this Motion down on the basis that they do not yet know, or do not want Parliament to know, what Mr Burnham’s plans are. Did hundreds of Labour MPs and Peers really flock, waving their selfies, to greet the Prime Minister without even asking what he stood for?

I say again: the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to come to Parliament to make a Statement regarding new policy announcements. By the way, the former Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place, was summarily and harshly sacked, along with many other friends of Sir Keir Starmer. Will the Chagos Bill now be buried? In that debate in April, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, declared

“scrutiny and accountability … those are issues that these Benches have focused on relentlessly”.—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 263.]

We shall soon see how relentless the Lib Dems will be on parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Scrutiny and accountability are the essential functions—the rights and duties—of your Lordships’ House, so I hope the noble Lord will be true to his words today and be relentless with the Government.

Currently, we have government by continuous press conference and media spin. That is not what this great House has ever believed in or should readily accept. In this unprecedented situation, the Government should answer in detail, and with details, to this part of Parliament that is sitting. I hope the noble Baroness the Leader, when she replies, will set out a reasonable programme of how she will ensure that that is done this week, including a short take-note Motion tomorrow. If not, I reserve the right to submit this Motion to the opinion of the House. That the Executive is accountable to Parliament is the most basic and dearly bought principle of a free democracy. It must never be bypassed. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will take this opportunity also to welcome the continuation in their role of the Leader and the Chief Whip.

Not yet.

I apologise to the Chief Whip if I have just doomed his chances in the reshuffle. Now all of his Back-Benchers are keeping a beady eye on their phones to learn his fate. I also thank on behalf of these Benches the outgoing Ministers for their service. They were open, accessible and often responsive. We thank them for their service and we wish them well. For those Ministers who will be either reappointed or newly appointed, we wish them luck in their role.

On more occasions than I can remember, the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that the House functions on the basis of a degree of respect among the usual channels. He has said it is a fundamental of how this House functions. We are a House of minorities, after all. He has reminded us on many occasions that, if the usual channels break down, the House does not function as it should.

The Chief Whip is leaving the Chamber. I think this brings a new meaning to “The Whip is off”.

Today’s Motion was not highlighted in the usual channels at all. The Government were not informed or consulted. My Benches were not. The Cross Benches were not. The usual channels were ignored. If the noble Lord considers the usual channels to be the fundamental principle of how this self-regulating House operates, why is it just today that he believes that they should be summarily ignored—not consulted, informed or written to?

On the subject of being written to, Peers across the House were this morning written to in a letter from the noble Lord condemning the Government for making announcements outside Parliament first. With a superpower level of irony, the letter was released to the press last night at 9.38 pm. When these Benches were asked by Sky News last night for a comment on the letter, my immediate reflection was to say that this could not have happened: colleagues were not written to, and I did not receive a letter, so obviously this was not the case. Sky News then pinged on X—I will happily give way if the noble Baroness wishes to correct the record.