Procedure Committee

We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee. Dame Karen Bradley will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. May I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Government Minister? Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Procedure Committee report “Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords”, which was published yesterday. I thank both the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for the statement and the Clerks of the Committee, who put the report together in very short order to ensure that we could report as soon as possible in the new year on this important matter.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Mr Speaker asked the Committee to examine this issue after the appointment of Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary. He asked us whether any historical precedent could be adapted to allow non-Members to participate in Commons proceedings, and whether options for scrutiny should extend beyond departmental questions to statements, urgent questions and debates.

I would like to thank the 131 colleagues who responded to our survey, and those who submitted evidence to our inquiry. Almost nine in 10 of those who responded to our survey wanted to see more direct accountability of Lords Secretaries of State in the Commons. Around 85% thought it should include departmental question times, urgent questions and statements. Almost two thirds thought it should take place in the Chamber.

Some colleagues raised concerns that changing our procedure to facilitate scrutiny would legitimise the appointment of more senior Ministers in the Lords. The constitutional question of the House in which senior Ministers sit is not in the Procedure Committee’s remit, but our clear preference as MPs—the elected representatives of our constituents—is that Secretaries of State should sit in the Commons. That is why our recommendations are limited to this Parliament, to deal with the issues that the House faces now. They should not set a precedent for the future.

We have great respect for the work of the House of Lords in its scrutiny of the Government. The other place has great expertise and experience of foreign policy and international affairs among its Members. The Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees do excellent work holding the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to account, and I support their calls for Lord Cameron to appear regularly before them, as Secretaries of State in the Commons appear regularly before their departmental Committees. But their work complements scrutiny in this Chamber— it does not replace it.

As the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), told us, Select Committees and the Chamber have unique mandates, functions and purposes. They are not synonymous. Scrutiny by elected MPs on behalf of their constituents is a fundamental part of our democratic system, as is debate across the Dispatch Boxes between Ministers and the Opposition. Therefore, every MP should have the ability to directly question the Foreign Secretary.

Following yesterday's debate on the situation in the Red sea, there was no retrospective vote on UK military action. The debate was responded to by the Minister of State from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is a brilliant Minister and answered expertly. In the light of the work of the right hon. Lady’s Select Committee on accountability for Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, does she think that another precedent is Lord Carrington? He resigned during the Falklands war for not having anticipated the Argentinian invasion, despite warnings from Members of this House.

The question of whether a vote is required for military action is not a matter that the Procedure Committee deals with, but I am sure colleagues on the Front Bench heard that point.

On the matter of Lord Carrington, the hon. Gentleman will recall that at that time the Prime Minister appointed a deputy Foreign Secretary to sit in this House, so there was somebody with the ability to answer for the whole Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was, in this Chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.

I thank my right hon. Friend for ably chairing the Procedure Committee in its deliberations and for compiling this topical and timely report. Will she assure Members such as myself, who can perhaps be regarded as sceptical of innovations in this House, that the proposals contained within this excellent report are deeply wedded in tradition? Indeed, it was the case that, in 1814, the Duke of Wellington came to the Bar of the House to answer questions from MPs. Now, while the Duke of Wellington and Lord Cameron may have enjoyed rather different campaigns in Europe, it is none the less deeply wedded in tradition.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I know he is very, very concerned with matters of the constitution, and with ensuring that we look at precedents. I can assure him that, as Mr Speaker asked us to, we started from historic precedent. He rightly cites the example of the Duke of Wellington in 1814, who I believe received the plaudits of Members while at the Bar of the House. I think a painting of such can be seen in the National Portrait Gallery.

I congratulate the right hon. Lady and her Committee on an excellent report. I very much agree with its recommendations. The Leader of the House said that the Government would respond shortly. Has she had any indication from the Government that they will accept the Committee’s recommendations? She said that it needs the agreement of the Lords. What sort of timescale is there for how quickly that process can be agreed?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his comments about the report. The report was published only yesterday, so I would not expect to have heard any response from the Government yet. I am sure that the Leader of the House will ensure that a response is forthcoming shortly. He is absolutely right. We have to bear in mind that the other place is an independent body and its Members are governed by its rules, which say that Members should not appear before this House without explicit permission from the other place. That includes appearances in front of Select Committees, Bill Committees and so on. We will wait to see how long such matters might take, but I hope that the other place will recognise and acknowledge the real concerns in this place that we should be able to properly scrutinise. We have to remember that in this House we represent the people who sent us here. The other place has great expertise and contains some great minds, but it does not speak on behalf of constituents in the way that we have to as elected Members. That is an important distinction.

I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for her statement, and for her very succinct and helpful answers. We all know Lord Cameron and recognise his ability and qualities to do the job that we need. I am very conscious that we live in a very dangerous world, where there are wars and rumours of wars, to cite the Bible. With the Foreign Secretary in the other place, that leaves a gap in accountability. Today, I believe that that accountability gap has been addressed. Does the Committee believe that accountability in this House is the priority and that our constituents deserve that as well?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and hon. Friend, for his comments. I would have been disappointed if he had not contributed, so I am very grateful he stayed to take part. He is absolutely right. This is the concern that the Committee has had throughout: that there is a democratic deficit if we cannot raise concerns on behalf of our constituents. We are in our constituencies hearing what our constituents are concerned about, so we know what people on the ground are feeling. That is no criticism of any Member in the other place, but they simply do not have that day-to-day contact with constituents. That is why we felt that it was so important, particularly in the world that we see today, that we were able to scrutinise properly the work of the FCDO and the Secretary of State. We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State should take part in debates—we accept that debates are a different matter—but there will always be statements, and some urgent questions, to which it is appropriate for a Secretary of State rather than a Minister to respond. Again, this is no criticism whatsoever of the excellent Ministers in the FCDO, but at times a Secretary of State has to be the one who responds, and that is what we have put in our report.