Andrew Mitchell’s new job title doesn’t resolve how to best scrutinise Lords ministers like David Cameron

When Andrew Mitchell was given the title of deputy foreign secretary, the government insisted that it was an ‘honorific’ title. ⁷ gov.uk, The Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, www.gov.uk/government/people/andrew-mitchell  But it is hard not to see Mitchell’s unusual position as part of an attempt to reassure MPs that the Commons is able to scrutinise the work of the Foreign Office in detail while the minister in charge – David Cameron – is in the House of Lords.

Mitchell is a well-liked MP and seen as taking his role seriously. He brings experience, having been a chief whip and secretary of state for international development under the coalition, and his 2022 appointment as a Foreign Office minister was seen as an attempt to re-establish the importance of international development within the merged FCDO, which had taken over the brief from Mitchell’s former department.

The government rejected the Commons’ proposals for more scrutiny of Cameron

When Rishi Sunak appointed David Cameron to the House of Lords so that he could re-join the government, there was criticism that the new foreign secretary would not face the same level of scrutiny as other members of the cabinet. This was seen as particularly important in the context of the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the wider impact that foreign affairs are having on the UK economy and politics.  

The House of Commons’ Procedure Committee suggested that Cameron could come to “the bar of the Commons” to answer questions in the elected house. But the government rejected this, arguing that Cameron faces more scrutiny than any other minister as he has a specific question time session in the Lords, as well as answering to the various Commons committees covering the work of the FCDO.

The government also argued that such an arrangement would establish a precedent that may not be helpful, and would risk undermining the ability of the House of Lords to manage its own affairs. ⁸ PACAC, Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report, 17 April 2024, publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmproced/672/report.html  And it also pointed out that Cameron’s situation is not unique, with previous governments of both major parties have appointed secretaries of state in the upper house.

The messy compromise may not hold in the future

While the government is wary of establishing unhelpful precedents, the current arrangements may not be sustainable. The existing broad cross-party agreement on the government’s position on the global challenges the UK is facing may not always be the case: in the future, there may be more demand from MPs for the person in charge of the UK’s foreign policy to answer their questions in the chamber of the Commons, where in theory all MPs can question the minister, rather than in a select committee where only members can ask questions.

Future governments may choose to appoint secretaries of state to the Lords who run departments for which scrutiny from elected politicians may be even more important. With Labour having been particularly critical of the Commons’ inability to question Cameron like other ministers, it will be interesting to see whether, if Labour forms the next government, Keir Starmer appoints any cabinet ministers in the Lords, as the last Labour government did. 

Andrew Mitchell’s increased profile and new title may help assuage some MPs that they are questioning, if not the most senior minister in the FCDO, someone who is very close to him. It does not mean however that the question of how to scrutinise members of the cabinet based in the upper house is resolved.