When Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton took the oath as Foreign Secretary on November 13, 2023, he didn’t just step into a new job—he walked into a constitutional minefield. Once Prime Minister of the UK, now a life peer in the unelected House of Lords, he cannot stand at the Despatch Box in the House of Commons to answer urgent questions, make statements, or be grilled by MPs during Prime Minister’s Questions. That’s not a glitch. It’s a feature of Britain’s unwritten constitution. But in a world where Russia is bombing Ukraine and bombs are falling in Gaza, many are asking: How can a man managing global crises be shielded from the elected chamber?
The Accountability Gap That No One Wanted
The Hansard Society called it "inconceivable." And they weren’t exaggerating. When a Foreign Secretary is seated in the Lords, MPs lose direct access to the minister responsible for Britain’s most critical foreign policy decisions. No urgent debates. No spontaneous questions. No standing ovations—or heckles—after a bold speech. Instead, accountability is funneled through the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a slow, scheduled affair. On January 9, 2024, at precisely 2:30 p.m., Lord Cameron appeared before them. It was one of his few public appearances before Commons MPs. He spoke about 15 countries he’s thinking about daily. He defended UK aid spending at 4.5% of the budget. He praised the new development white paper. But he didn’t face a single tough follow-up from an opposition MP. Not really.
Enter Andrew Mitchell MP, the Minister of State for Development and Africa. He’s the one who actually stands in the Commons Chamber, answering questions on behalf of the Foreign Secretary. But he’s not in the Cabinet. He’s a deputy. A proxy. A stand-in. And as the Institute for Government noted, he’s "ultimately a deputy who attends but is not a full member of the Cabinet." That’s not accountability. It’s theatrical substitution.
A Precedent That Ended in Resignation
This isn’t the first time the Lords has housed a Foreign Secretary. Lord Carrington did it from 1979 to 1982 under Margaret Thatcher. Then came the Falklands. When Argentine forces invaded the islands in April 1982, Carrington faced mounting pressure. He couldn’t answer MPs directly. He couldn’t defend his department’s intelligence failures in the Commons. So he resigned. Not because he was to blame for the invasion—but because the system made it impossible for him to be properly held to account. "It was the constitutional impossibility," wrote historian Andrew Roberts. "He had no platform to speak for himself."
Now, history is echoing. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The collapse of ceasefire talks in Gaza. The rise of Iran-backed militias across the Middle East. And Lord Cameron, the man steering Britain’s response, sits in a chamber where MPs can’t touch him. The Hansard Society warned in its submission to Parliament: "If the Middle East descended into regional war or there were serious developments in Ukraine, MPs would not be able to question the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber, but Peers would be able to do so in the House of Lords."
Why This Matters More Than Ever
Professor Richard Whitman of the University of Kent put it bluntly: "It’s a ready-made criticism for opposition parties." And he’s right. When Labour or the SNP attack UK policy on Israel or Ukraine, they can’t confront the architect of that policy. They can only question a junior minister who didn’t draft the strategy. That’s not democracy. It’s a loophole dressed as tradition.
Lord Cameron’s own record adds fuel to the fire. As Prime Minister, he personally pushed for military intervention in Libya—then watched it spiral into chaos. He lost a key Commons vote on Syria in 2013, when MPs rejected bombing Assad’s regime. Now, he’s the Foreign Secretary managing the fallout from those decisions—and MPs can’t hold him directly accountable for them. The irony is thick enough to spread on toast.
What’s Been Tried—and Why It Failed
In 2009, the Commons Procedure Committee proposed a fix: two 45-minute question sessions per year in Westminster Hall, a secondary debating chamber. It was meant to be a compromise. A way for Lords-based ministers to face MPs without breaking centuries of precedent. But it never happened. After the 2010 election, the political will vanished. The idea was shelved. And now, with Lord Cameron in office, no one’s revived it.
Meanwhile, Lord Cameron’s appearances in the Lords have been… gentle. He gave one set of polite questions to peers. He sat for a "softball session" with his former national security adviser chairing the House of Lords European Affairs Committee. He skipped a meeting with the European Scrutiny Committee—reportedly to avoid a showdown with veteran Tory MP Bill Cash. And while he was in the Middle East, he didn’t show up for the Lords’ own Foreign Affairs Committee. The optics? Awful.
The Bigger Picture: Democracy vs. Tradition
At its core, this isn’t about Lord Cameron. It’s about whether Britain still believes in the principle that those who wield power must answer to the people’s representatives. The House of Lords is a chamber of appointed peers. It’s not democratic. It’s not accountable. And yet, it’s now the only place where Britain’s top diplomat can be questioned.
When US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken held a joint press conference with Lord Cameron in London, it was a global moment. A sign of Britain’s continued influence. But behind the scenes, British MPs were left watching from the sidelines. No questions. No scrutiny. Just press releases.
What’s Next?
The government says it’s reviewing the situation. But no timeline. No commitment. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has asked for a formal review of ministerial accountability when the Foreign Secretary sits in the Lords. The House of Commons may soon vote on whether to demand change. If they do, the pressure will be impossible to ignore.
For now, Lord Cameron remains in his elevated seat, managing global crises from a chamber that can’t be held to account by the people’s voice. It’s a system that worked when the world was quieter. It doesn’t now.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can’t Lord Cameron answer questions in the House of Commons?
Because he sits in the House of Lords, not the elected House of Commons. Only MPs can speak in the Commons Chamber, and peers are barred from doing so. This is a centuries-old constitutional rule designed to preserve the Commons’ supremacy—but it now creates a critical gap in accountability for ministers managing global crises.
Has this ever happened before with a Foreign Secretary?
Yes. Lord Carrington served as Foreign Secretary from the Lords between 1979 and 1982. When the Falklands War broke out, he faced intense criticism for being unable to answer MPs directly. He resigned shortly after, citing constitutional pressure. Other Lords-based Foreign Secretaries since then, like Baroness Amos and Baroness Morgan, didn’t face wartime emergencies, making Cameron’s situation uniquely tense.
What’s the proposed solution to this problem?
In 2009, the Commons Procedure Committee suggested allowing Lords-based Foreign Secretaries to answer questions in Westminster Hall twice a year. The idea was dropped after the 2010 election. Now, with global crises mounting, MPs are calling for its revival. But the government has yet to commit to any reform, leaving the current system intact.
How does this affect UK foreign policy credibility?
Internationally, the UK still commands respect—evidenced by joint press events with US Secretary Blinken. But domestically, the inability of MPs to directly question the Foreign Secretary undermines public trust. It fuels perceptions that the government is evading scrutiny, especially when policies stem from past decisions like Libya or Syria, where Lord Cameron himself was directly involved.
Is there a legal way to force Lord Cameron into the Commons?
No. The Prime Minister can’t force a peer to become an MP. But Parliament could pass a law requiring the Foreign Secretary to sit in the Commons—though that would require a major constitutional overhaul. For now, the only leverage MPs have is through select committees and public pressure, not legal authority.
What role does the House of Lords play in modern democracy?
The Lords acts as a revising chamber, offering expertise and delaying legislation—but it has no democratic mandate. When a senior minister like the Foreign Secretary sits there, it creates a democratic deficit: the person making life-or-death decisions on war, aid, and alliances isn’t answerable to voters. Critics argue this undermines the core principle of representative government.
