Business of the House
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:15 - Division on Lord True's Motion - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 234 - Lord True’s Motion disagreed.
Lord True
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.
Lord True (Con)
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.
However, yesterday, outside Parliament, while Parliament was sitting here, he declared grandiloquently that he would be
“a circuit breaker for Britain, bringing forward the biggest changes in the last forty years … A new political model”—
one that, incidentally, includes putting someone who resigned on a propriety and ethics issue in charge of propriety and ethics, and putting someone who resigned over a housing issue in charge of housing. I have heard of thumbing the nose at the so-called establishment, but there are points when it can look a little rich.
The Cabinet met earlier today to discuss the Government’s new ideas. The noble Baroness the Leader was there. So can your Lordships’ House—can this Parliament, sitting here in this place—not be told the barest outline of this new political model, the new economic model and the 10-year plan? For example, will tax overall go up or will it come down? Will welfare spending rise or will it be cut? What is the fiscal strategy? Already, the Government have talked or briefed outside Parliament about cutting energy bills, lifting the personal tax allowance, nationalising Thames Water, the biggest council house programme since the war, giving mayors more funding, creating a national care service, more overseas aid, cutting student loan repayments, more employment support and ending homelessness.
Noble Lords
Lord True (Con)
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.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will take this opportunity also to welcome the continuation in their role of the Leader and the Chief Whip.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
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.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Might I correct the noble Lord? I spoke to both the Government Chief Whip and the Lib Dem Chief Whip last night well before 9.38 pm.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Baroness is well aware that there are recognised ways that the usual channels operate. She may protest, and if she wishes to intervene again, I am happy to take it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not protesting; I am stating a fact.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I indicated that these Benches were not consulted or written to with regard to the noble Lord. That is perfectly clear. When the press were told at 9.38 pm, when the House was still sitting, there was no convening of the usual channels to discuss the business ahead. Can the noble Baroness confirm—she can intervene on me again—whether there was any meeting of the usual channels last evening when we were still sitting?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can absolutely confirm that I discussed it with both the Government Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. We do not generally convene as a three; we speak separately and together, often.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it might help the House to know that, by the time the noble Baroness spoke to the Chief Whip, the Motion had already been tabled and we had been alerted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The usual channels were not convened, informed or written to. When we were notified that a Motion had been tabled, that is not the way that the usual channels operate our business. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm the point that the Leader indicated. Had the other Benches been informed—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Chief Whip, who is back in his place, or the Opposition Chief Whip might be able to confirm to the House whether the Motion had been tabled before the noble Baroness informed those she claims were consulted. No—there is silence. I think that confirms that matter. So, we are now debating a complaint about announcements being made outside Parliament first, which itself was an announcement made outside Parliament first.
Setting aside the nature of this for one moment, it is probably worth noting that when there were three Conservative Prime Ministers in three years—I checked Hansard—there were no debates in this House on the political priorities and legislative agenda of each Prime Minister when they took office. In 2022, when Liz Truss took office, she appointed the noble Lord, Lord True, to be Leader of this House, and there was no debate. I do not blame him for not scheduling a debate, because there was not enough time in her period of office for us to debate this fully.
Lord True (Con)
If it cuts short the noble Lord’s speech, which seems to be an attack on this side rather than any kind of examination of the other, in the case of Mr Johnson, he went immediately to Parliament and answered questions at great length on his programme. In the case of Liz Truss, she did Prime Minister’s Questions within two days and gave a full account to Parliament in the proper way. The same thing happened in the case of Rishi Sunak. What is different in this case—the noble Lord can tell me if it is not—is that there is no mechanism by which Mr Burnham has allowed himself to be examined by the House of Commons or to be properly accountable to Parliament.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as Hansard will show and as I indicated very clearly, there was no debate on the Government’s priorities, political or legislative, in this House, as the noble Lord is seeking that we have. It is his right not to be consistent—I understand that—but when it comes to Prime Ministers seeking to avoid scrutiny, all of us remember that it was Prime Minister Johnson who prorogued Parliament specifically to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, which was deemed illegal.
In pre-issuing the letter about the debate, I do not think the noble Lord had been consulting some of his colleagues in the Commons, because much of this Motion now seems to be a bit out of date. The Conservative-chaired Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into government announcements made outside Parliament. It reported and gave its considerations on 9 January. It said that the code was out of date, given modern media considerations, and needed clarity. In paragraph 40, it said that
“the media environment has changed significantly in recent years, and the provisions on the need to make the most important statements of government policy to Parliament first have remained substantively the same since the Code was introduced in 1997. It may well be the case that this section of the Code needs to be modernised to reflect the ‘Parliament first’ principle while also recognising that governments must seek to communicate their policies effectively to the public they serve”.
It was a Select Committee in the Commons chaired by a Conservative MP which made that recommendation. The Government published their response on 4 June accepting the recommendation and have stated that the code will be revised. The noble Lord’s Motion is out of date. The Conservative chair, Simon Hoare MP, said that he welcomed the Government’s acceptance to amend the code to be more flexible on announcements given the new media environment:
“It has been clear for some time that the current situation regarding the Ministerial Code and major policy announcements is untenable. It is refreshing to see that the Government have shown they are willing to adapt the code in a way which ensures it is fit-for-purpose”.
The letter that colleagues received this morning is substantively out of date. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, will wish to speak to his Commons Conservative colleagues to have an ongoing debate about how the code will be amended.
Notwithstanding that we seek an opportunity for there to be proper consideration of the political priorities and legislative agenda of the Burnham premiership, so far, we have noted that the new Prime Minister has said that he regrets that there have been major omissions, such as real action to fix the crisis in social care and to reduce the crippling burden on businesses, which is wrapped up in Brexit bureaucracy. We need a clear direction on major reforms to our body politic, and tinkering at the edges will not do.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
By popular demand, I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is an historic speech on his part; this is probably the most momentous missing of the point since the crowd called for Barabbas to be freed. Am I right in thinking that the Liberal Democrats will not vote for greater scrutiny and will decide tonight to let the Government off the hook, because their attachment to their friends in the Labour Party is greater than their commitment to democracy?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It is not exactly Churchillian to ask for a take-note debate. I do not think that “We will take note of them on the beaches, we will take note of them on the landing grounds, we will always take note” is the speech that the noble Lord thinks we need to make. I think we have taken note of enough from that side.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will make a pertinent single point, quoting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wrote to Labour MPs on 8 July, setting out his approach to how he wanted to treat Parliament. He said that Ministers would respect the House. I presume by that he meant that Ministers would respect the Houses. He also said in his email that he wanted to see us do politics differently.
Lord Harper (Con)
I do not why they are laughing; this is their Prime Minister. He said that he wanted to see politics done differently. He said he wanted to see more consensus—which means working together to debate the policies of the Government—and more of a partnership approach from the Government, treating Parliament properly, for both policy and legislation.
We can judge parties and Prime Ministers by their words or by what they do. Those were fine words, but we are going to judge the Government by what they do. If they choose to absent themselves from scrutiny, while one House of Parliament is sitting, we will know that those were just words and that the Prime Minister has no intention to do politics differently or take Parliament seriously and does not respect the House of Lords, and we will draw our conclusions and behave accordingly.
There is an opportunity for the Lord Privy Seal to demonstrate that the Prime Minister’s own words to Labour MPs had some meaning, to make a generous response to my noble friend Lord True—enabling him to withdraw his Motion and for us to debate the Government’s policies, which appear to be popular on the other side—and to answer questions. We can do that this week, when this House is sitting. I look forward to what she has to say.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord True, and thank those Ministers who have served in government and have now left government. Their service has been exemplary, they have all been dedicated and hard-working and we are grateful for their continued support and wish them well. I welcome the fact that my noble friend the Chief Whip has been reappointed. It is not necessarily the greatest secret of the House at the moment, but we look forward to working with him. I look forward to working with him as well, and I thank him for his comments about my reappointment to the Cabinet.
At the start of this Session, in the King’s Speech, we, as group leaders, pledged and spoke of a reset, returning to our usual ways of working in a collegiate and productive way that best benefits this House and the work that we are entrusted to undertake. As a matter of clarity—I know that the Chief Whips have spoken outside—yesterday’s Motion was tabled at around 5 pm. I later went down to see the Leader of the Opposition. When I first tried to speak to him, I was told that he was unavailable to speak to me, although he realised within a few minutes that that was not a good idea and came down. I am grateful to him for that, although it was not, as the noble Lord knows, the most productive conversation.
Lord True (Con)
For clarity, I had no knowledge that the Leader of the House had been told that. Of course, as soon as I heard that she had been told that, I came immediately down to the corridor, as she has just acknowledged. There was no question whatever of my refusing to see the Leader of the House on any occasion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, because I was told by his office that he was unavailable to see me at that point. I did say that he then came down to see me, but I am grateful for the clarification that he was not involved in that decision by his office.
The Motion was tabled at around 5 pm and, as the Chief Whips have agreed, there were no discussions with the usual channels until around 9.30 pm.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Okay, 9 pm. I have to say, given what was said—we all agreed on how we would say this when we had the King’s Speech—I was a bit surprised and, as I say, disappointed that there was no consultation, discussion, engagement or even notice from the noble Lord. There was no request for a Statement. There was no discussion to say, “Have we got any plans this week for a debate? Would we like to do that?” The first we knew about it was a Motion being tabled. There was no attempt at all to seek to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord in any of the ways to which we committed when we had the debate on the King’s Speech. I must say to the noble Lord that I really thought that we had made some progress then.
As the noble Lord said, business Motions moved by the Opposition are not unprecedented, but they are extremely rare. Only twice in recent history have the Opposition attempted to take control of the Order Paper in this way, and doing so was very much opposed then by the noble Lord opposite. Lord Richard did it in 1996, about 30 years ago, in response to the Scott report. I did something similar in 2019, reflecting a Motion that had been tabled in the House of Commons in relation to Brexit; I hope that none of us would want to return to those bad-tempered days of debate. Fortunately—particularly for the party opposite, including the noble Lord and his predecessors—this has never happened before with a change of Prime Minister.
I completely agree with, and have always committed to, the idea that the House should be given ample opportunity to scrutinise the Government. However, in politics, as in life, patience is a virtue. This is day 2 of a new Prime Minister. The Government are still being formed; we saw an appointment just now. Of course, we will welcome scrutiny—Ministers will come to this House and Parliament will do its job in scrutinising the work of the new Government—but this Motion is unnecessary. It is not the way this House does business. There have not been any extensive policy changes at this point, and the Prime Minister has committed to move forward on the basis of the manifesto on which this party was elected at the 2024 election.
On an issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this morning, the Prime Minister announced a targeted intervention on VAT to help with the cost of living. Today, a Written Ministerial Statement was laid to update the House on these matters, and a topical Oral Question on Thursday relates to these matters. Further, in the autumn, noble Lords will have to scrutinise the regulations that give effect to the policy. That is hardly dodging scrutiny.
I have also laid a Written Ministerial Statement today to inform Parliament of the machinery of government changes that have taken place, and my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent has answered a PNQ on the topic. My point is that the scrutiny of government is continuing. We have a number of Bills before us which also deserve scrutiny, Oral Questions to be asked, Statements to be repeated and replied to, and yesterday 10 Private Notice Questions were tabled—an exceptional number. General debates will take place on Thursday, and we will continue to lay Written Ministerial Statements as required. If this Motion were carried, it would be put at risk a full day of business tomorrow and continued scrutiny of legislation that this House presumably considers important.
The Prime Minister has been very clear: he takes Parliament seriously. I can tell the noble Lord—[Interruption.] It is no good the party opposite making those comments. It is day two of a new Prime Minister, and I would like to have a considered response from him and for the House fully and properly to debate proposals when he brings them forward. As a parliamentarian of nearly 30 years who has been on the Front Bench—in government and in opposition—for over 25 years, I hope that noble Lords recognise my commitment to the work of this House and to scrutiny of government. Rest assured, we will not seek to evade or avoid scrutiny of our Government’s policies, because we will be proud of those policies as they are drafted and brought forward for further discussion.
This Prime Minister did not set the timing for the change of leadership. The Prime Minister did not set the timing for the recess dates. The noble Lord tabled his Motion yesterday. He has known for some time now—it has not exactly been a state secret—when the new Prime Minister was taking office. Procedures such as this should be used only in rare and unprecedented times. The party opposite has ensured that a change of party leader between elections is certainly not unprecedented. I urge noble Lords not to accept this Motion. But, whatever the outcome, can we rise above some of the rancour today, which was unnecessary? I wish all noble Lords a restful Summer Recess, and I look forward to further scrutiny in September.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I reciprocate the noble Baroness’s last words and wish that to all Members of this House. This House works extremely hard and certainly merits the time off it will have. I also agree with her—I said this at the outset of my speech—that these things are exceptional. The noble Baroness put forward a Motion of this kind at the time of the debate over prorogation, which was pretty well unprecedented. As I explained in my speech, it is unprecedented—apart from in 1963—for a change of this kind to take place when the House of Commons is not sitting. That is the case for your Lordships’ House being given the opportunity to debate these questions. I do value good relations with the noble Baroness, and if by that incident or anything else—by sin of commission or omission—she has been disobliged, I apologise for that.
Returning to the debate, we had 10 minutes from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I do not really know what he was on about for most of that time. He certainly was not relentless for accountability: he was as relentless as a limp rag when it came to criticism of the Government. He certainly fell below the standard of the time. As far as the party opposite are concerned, what are they so worried about? A short three-hour debate tomorrow would not interfere with any holiday plans. Mr Burnham says that he wants to bring back hope. That must be more than an admission of the hopelessness of two years of Keir Starmer, his Government and their huge toll on business and jobs. It must be an expression of confidence, as we have heard from others, that his policies are better. So why are they so afraid to debate them here, in Parliament, now, when the time is right?
This House is a House of scrutiny, and I believe we should assert our right to be informed and to be heard. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.