Business of the House
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 21 Jul 2026 · 42 speeches · Official Report
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...
Noble Lords
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
My Lords, I am not protesting; I am stating a fact.
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?
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.
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.
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-
Noble Lords
Oh!
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.
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.
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...
When we return in September, in the first week there is Labour business time-government time. It is fully appropriate that, after the summer, when we have seen the full raft of announcements by the new premier, that this House debates, provides scrutiny and can hold the Government to account for the announcements that they are now making. I hope the Leader will respond very positively and that, when we return in the first week in September, we will have an appropriate opportunity for us to take into consideration whether the new Prime Minister’s priorities are-
My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
If he will forgive me, I am just-
Noble Lords
Oh!
By popular demand, I shall give way to the noble Lord.
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?
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.
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.
Noble Lords
Oh!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Around 9 pm.
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...
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...