Standards in Public Life

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:08

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 9 February.

“Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department of Justice about the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined the immediate steps that this Government took, including an initial review of material, which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan Police, and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of Peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I am here today to update the House on further action that the Government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations since my Statement last week.

I am sure that the House will agree that issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful, rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. The procedural rules, and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, are important given what has been able to happen in the past, but we should start by recognising that our collective response requires wider changes in the culture and use of power, wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became Director of Public Prosecutions, why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims-oriented, and why he became Prime Minister.

As I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes. The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices, of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week have made it clear to us all, rightly, that for too long, and too often, influential people in positions of power—overwhelmingly men—have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them. If I may say so, Members who are chuntering from the Conservative Benches while I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and the abuse of power should know better and recognise that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about victims and the justice that they deserve to seek.

Peter Mandelson’s disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standards system to catch those few individuals who seek to break our rules. This damages all Members across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected Members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This House, and indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, and making significant personal sacrifices, in order to try to make a difference to people’s lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, and to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard. The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way.

Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser, and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, while also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last Administration. This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a serious breach of the Ministerial Code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found in breach of the business appointment rules. It is also why the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice—so that, when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account.

In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced Peers and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of privy counsellors. We are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

However, we recognise that we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior government officials are sufficient, and whether regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used in the future.

We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communication channels within government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information, as Conservative Members know from their former Ministers forwarding information from the Government via private email accounts to people when they should not have done so. The Government recognise the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.

This work will focus on the issues for the Government, but it will complement a range of work being carried out both in this House and in the other place. The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the Code of Conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to Peers and lobbying, need to be reformed.

Finally, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the humble Address Motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The Government are committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the Motion agreed by the House, and we are working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers that the Government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister wrote to the chair of the committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the Motion. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work.

We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life and, as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the problem with this Statement is that it does not address the central question of why the Prime Minister chose a twice-disgraced man, a known associate of a convicted criminal and one of the most repellent paedophiles we have ever known, to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington—removing an outstanding career diplomat to make way for a liar and a charlatan.

None of the extensive if rather vague measures set out in this Statement would have had any impact on what happened. The Prime Minister knew of Mandelson’s track record and that Mandelson was still in touch with Epstein, yet he promoted Mandelson. This was a massive misjudgment, as I know the noble Baroness opposite agrees, which has brought disrepute not on this House, as the Statement claimed, but on Mandelson and those who appointed him. It has also deeply embarrassed our country.

The Statement talks about a duty of candour. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the public accountability Bill? When will it be brought to your Lordships’ House? In relation to candour, I draw attention to two words in the resignation statement of Morgan McSweeney. The words I refer to are, “when asked”. The resignation statement said:

“When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment”.


Mr McSweeney did not write those words by accident. Who asked him about Mandelson? Was it Mr Jonathan Powell or was it the Prime Minister? Who was it? At Questions today, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, said that she did not know. Can the noble Baroness tell us? If she does not know now, will she undertake to find out and let the House know?

The Statement and much of the accompanying spin threw out a lot of blame and a lot of political chaff. We have had blame cast on the vetting system. I believe that is a disservice to the highly dedicated professionals involved, but who made the appointment? If the Prime Minister did not have enough vetting information, heaven knows, he is the Prime Minister—he of all people could have asked the security services for more. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told the House at Questions that Mandelson was announced as ambassador before the vetting process was completed. Why was that? Was it not considered important?

There is talk in the Statement of more rules on standards. We all want the highest standards in public life but, had the standards that already exist been respected and enforced, we would not find ourselves in this position at all. The problem before us is not absence of rules but absence of judgment. No amount of new bureaucratic architecture can compensate for such a basic failure.

There is talk in the Statement of a

“lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels”.

I think that is jargon for WhatsApp. My goodness, what would Mr Streeting and the other eager contenders for the Labour leadership do without WhatsApp? Of course, we all agree with Mr Streeting that the Government have

“No growth strategy at all”,


but the Cabinet Office published detailed guidance on these matters in 2023. Was it not being followed by those involved? Can the Minister tell us in what specific respects this guidance in relation to the use of WhatsApp is unclear? What steps are being taken to avoid the intentional deletion and auto-deletion of electronic communications by any special adviser or person involved in these matters? Has guidance been sent to departments?

There is talk of banning second jobs. My personal view is that a politics made up only of professional politicians would be a politics deprived of many insights. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give the firmest possible assurance that there will be no extension of that to this House, which relies so much on outside experience?

The Statement says that the Government will ask your Lordships’ Conduct Committee to reinvestigate rules around the conduct of Peers. With respect, that is a matter for this House and not for the Government. The Conduct Committee carried out a major review of the Code of Conduct earlier this Session, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It reached carefully considered conclusions, published barely more than a year ago. I understand that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has written to the committee seeking further consideration. No one can object to any code being kept under review; that is what we do and have done in this House over the years. However, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will assure this House that there will be no pressure from the Government on the committee as it considers her letter, simply on the basis that the Prime Minister wants to close a stable door that he should never have opened in the first place.

We welcome that the Statement reiterates that the ISC will be able to review all documents relevant to this scandal, but can the noble Baroness respond to a question asked last week by my noble friend Lady Finn about the powers inherent in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the potential influence of the Cabinet Office? What steps are being taken to avoid conflicts of interest or undue pressure in the light of the ISC secretariat being staffed by the Cabinet Office?

The Statement says that the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the committee about the documents. Can the noble Baroness confirm the astounding reports today that the Cabinet Secretary is now potentially being removed and may perhaps be a further scapegoat in this sorry affair? Is it true that he is leaving or not?

If there is to be legislation about titles, as is alluded to and which we can certainly, positively, all consider in this House, will the noble Baroness give a clear assurance that there will be full and open consultation across party lines before any legislation is published?

Certainly, it will be a welcome thing if the likes of Mandelson are rooted out of public life, even if at the third time of asking. However, I submit that we should not be stampeded into ill thought-through measures that may trench on the freedoms and privileges of Parliament. Does the noble Baroness agree that the answer is not necessarily to rebuild the system in haste after each failure but to exercise proper judgment at the point of appointment? That is what went wrong in this sorry affair.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I must apologise for being a little late; the annunciator was not operating properly in my room. I must also apologise that I am speaking and not my noble friend Lord Purvis. He has been at the funeral of my namesake in Kirkwall today.

I wish to talk about the broader issues in the Statement and, to quote the Statement, about what we need to do

“to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations”

since the Prime Minister’s Statement last week. We all face the enormous problem now of longer-term decline in public trust in politics in this country and of what this will do to make it decline further. All of us, in all parties, need to resist scoring too many points against each other and to recognise that we have a common task to rebuild that public trust.

I hope that, in that sense, the Government will take this opportunity to push through some of the reforms that the Labour Party and others have talked about but have not yet found the courage to pursue fully. I note, incidentally, that Transparency International has just lowered the UK’s rating in its Corruption Perceptions Index, which is now much closer to the American level than to the level of most European democracies. That is where we are. So I hope the Government will take this opportunity to introduce significant reforms, which we hope will command cross-party support.

I hope that these will include parliamentary scrutiny for all senior public appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, this afternoon hinted that His Majesty’s Government are already moving in this direction. Too much power and decision-making is concentrated in Downing Street. We all recognise that the Prime Minister has too many decisions to take. Parliamentary sovereignty is a convenient myth that covers Executive domination. Political decisions and appointments would be much more acceptable if government change were approved by Parliament.

Then we need to strengthen the guardians of ethics in public life. We need the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests to be strengthened in their roles and perhaps given a statutory basis. We need to look at the status of the Ministerial Code, and please can we have the delayed publication of the revised Cabinet Manual, last revised far too long ago?

We need to consider whether the business of taking office for the Prime Minister and for Ministers should be changed, and whether they should take an oath, perhaps before their House of Parliament, as they take office? Maybe they should receive training. Most immediately, I hope that the Government will now bring in a strong elections Bill, with caps on donations, defences against foreign, state and private donations, and a properly independent Electoral Commission.

There are broader reforms which the Liberal Democrats would like to push for to move away from the confrontational style of Westminster politics: fewer Ministers, looser Whips, stronger committees, acceptance that multiparty politics means a more collaborative style of politics. I heard Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, say last week at the Institute for Government that a change in the voting system would make our politics less adversarial. I hope there are some within the Government who are considering that.

There are particular implications of this scandal for the Lords, for which the Labour Government have not yet delivered half of the reforms their manifesto promised. This has damaged the reputation of the Lords, and that means that we have to take those reforms further. We are a part-time House, so the question of outside interests and second jobs, which the noble Lord, Lord True, touched on, is much more difficult for us. Prime ministerial patronage on appointments should also come into consideration. Donors should not be appointed to the Lords, which is a working Chamber. There is a strong case for rules on outside interests and for retirement and participation limits, and we look forward to receiving those.

Lastly, does the Leader agree that the widest lesson we have to take from this is that it is not only politicians who need to regain public trust but those who run international finance: banks in New York and London, multinational companies and high tech? Most of these are based in America, but I note that the CEO of the bank which paid for my education and at which my father worked for 40 years is one of those named in the Epstein files. We should not underestimate the scale of the potential public reaction against financial as well as political elites. Will the Government therefore discuss with the City of London how it, too, needs to react to what is now coming out and what will no doubt continue to come out for some weeks to come?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was unusually able to contribute despite being late. He was only a couple of seconds late, and obviously I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is at the funeral today in Orkney.

The Prime Minister has said that this was a wrong decision. He has been clear and honest about that and he has apologised. He has been clear that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson when questions were asked. He feels the sense of betrayal that a number of people feel about the answers that were given and about the trust that was broken. More importantly, when the Prime Minister apologised to Parliament, he also apologised to the women and girls who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein. If we do not keep them at the forefront of our minds, we do not learn any lessons and we do a disservice to them. Because of what has happened with Peter Manderson, they have relived this, and the impact that has had on their lives and continues to have going forward is something we have to be very aware of.

This was a betrayal on an almost industrial scale. I doubt many of us have read all the messages, but some messages were being sent in real time to Jeffrey Epstein on sometimes very sensitive matters of public policy. That is a betrayal not just of friends and colleagues but of the Government and the country, and we all take that seriously. This is not just about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. These were rich, influential, powerful people, mostly men, who used their power to use and abuse young girls, often almost in plain sight. I find that unsettling and deeply shocking. This scandal went on for so long, and yet again those who were abused were not believed. There are lessons to be learned from that.

Both noble Lords raised the question of what happens next. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the public accountability Bill. That is being worked on at pace to get things right, and the Prime Minister has made his personal commitment to that clear. The noble Lord also asked about the vetting system and said that blame was being pushed on to it. No, but the Prime Minister has said it was a wrong decision, and he takes responsibility for that and has apologised. But if we are saying that the vetting system cannot be improved, it was the same vetting system that had been used in every other case, although clearly, lies were given to the Prime Minister. But changes are being made to a system whereby it is after an appointment has been undertaken that full vetting, as opposed to due diligence, is undertaken, for now and for the future.

The noble Lord, Lord True, seems to think that the only non-corporate communication channel is WhatsApp. This has been visited by numerous Governments over years. Non-corporate communication channels are anything that is not the approved channel. Having been in government, he will have had a particular email address and a particular device he could use. I am told that back in the day, it was quite common for people to share emails on their BT email addresses. That is wrong, so over the years guidance has been given and will continue to be updated.

The noble Lord also asked about second jobs for MPs. Of course, it is a completely different issue. Anyone in this House who has been a Member of Parliament, and I see several, will know that it is a full-time job. This has been looked at in the past and it will be looked at again. It is different for your Lordships’ House, in that Members have outside interests they pursue. But there is also the issue of transparency and lobbying, which was mentioned, whereby Members cannot profit from membership of this House. There is no issue at all about Members having outside interests and outside employment, but there is an issue if the two become conflated and Members use membership of this House in order to profit from it. Lobbying Members, if employed by a lobbying firm, and those kinds of issues are ones the House would like to address. I am glad the noble Lord indicated his consent on that.

The noble Lord also asked about the ISC and the relevant documents. I am not quite sure what he was getting at. I think he was suggesting that, because the ISC is serviced by the Cabinet Office, somehow it does not have independence. The members and the chair of the ISC may feel very differently about independence and how it operates. I hope he was not suggesting that. I cannot give him any further information on the Cabinet Secretary; I do not have that information. If there is any information, I will of course update noble Lords.

The noble Lord asked about legislation to remove peerages and whether there would be full and open consultation. I was clear in this House last week that there would be. The noble Lord and I have discussed this privately as well, and I assured him of that. I do not know if he is uncertain about it, but for something that will have an impact beyond the current circumstances, I would want to ensure that this House was content with what it did, and that we were content that it would deal with any future circumstances where the House may think it appropriate that, because of someone’s behaviour—if they were expelled from this House, for example—they would not be entitled to continue to have a peerage.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should not be stampeded into changing the laws. Of course no one is going to be stampeded. We have a proper process in this House: it is called legislation, and that is how we take things forward. In terms of the Conduct Committee, I shared the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, with the noble Lord, Lord True. There is no undue influence, but the whole House would want to be assured that we are confident that our rules, processes and procedures do the job they are supposed to do to give Members of this House guidance and confidence, and to give the public confidence in our work as well.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. He had a bit of a shopping list, I am afraid, of various things that could be done, and I have probably been receiving two different sides of the argument here. This House knows that a number of things should be done about our processes. The Prime Minister has already updated the Ministerial Code so that the independent adviser can make decisions on his own about whether or not to investigate an issue. There are a number of things that have to be done, but at the bottom of this is that we have to ensure that we are above reproach and that we give confidence to the public that we do the work that we are here to do, without fear or favour, and with the spirit of the country’s interests at heart.

18:30

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, on 27 December 2025, the Sunday Times reported that the now noble Lord, Lord Doyle, had campaigned for Sean Morton after he was charged with child sex offences. The Letters Patent were not sealed until 13 January this year, so for 17 days the Prime Minister supported the process of conferring a peerage on someone who had continued an association with a known paedophile. That process of backing the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, continued until today, when the Whip was removed and an investigation has commenced. Does the Leader of the House support the removal of the peerage from the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, just as the Prime Minister has suggested should happen to Lord Mandelson?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in all these things there needs to be a proper process. There is an issue around due diligence on Members being nominated from all parties; we all have to ensure that we have the right processes in place. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, was approved by HOLAC on the information that it had available at that time. He now no longer has the Labour Whip and there will be an investigation.

I do not really want to get into speculating, when I do not know enough about the details, on whether an individual should have the Whip or peerage removed, but we have to ensure we have the ability to do that, which we do not at the moment. As we bring forward legislation on that issue, I will consult with noble Lords about the circumstances in which we think it is appropriate that someone should not be a Member of this House and, ideally, not have a peerage either.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the importance of the public having confidence in this House—indeed, in both Houses, but we are particularly concerned with this one—and I support her endeavours to achieve that. On the point just raised and on HOLAC—we have discussed vetting procedures as well—is there going to be an attempt in the review to find out what measures need strengthening with HOLAC so that impropriety can be brought to its attention? What I am specifically referring to here is this. If HOLAC has a name, and the name gets published by No. 10, and then information comes to light, can that preliminary announcement be exactly that—preliminary—with the ability for HOLAC to withdraw its consent once further information comes to light? Will she please look at that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not aware that that is the case at the moment. Once HOLAC has made a recommendation on the information that it has, the case is not normally reopened. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness makes. All these things are in the mix to be looked at, to ensure that we in this House can be confident of appointments that are made to this House and how those appointments reflect on it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I am so sorry, but I have to apologise to the House. I needed to have declared an interest. I spoke last Wednesday on a Question on think tanks but did not declare that, the previous Monday, I had become a fellow of the think tank Policy Exchange. I have apologised to the Minister, who is sitting on the Bench, and to the Government Chief Whip, and I apologise to the House for that error.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to press the Leader of the House on what she said about legislation concerning your Lordships’ House. I welcome what she has just said about full consultation and the legislation not being rushed through, but, yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, referring to this legislation, said:

“We will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/26; col. 573.]


Is that compatible with what the noble Baroness has just said about full consultation? Is it her intention to try to get the legislation through all stages before the end of this Session?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, not this Session of Parliament; I do not think that is appropriate for the kind of legislation that we are talking about. I think the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was saying that we want to move at pace on this, so that we have something that Members can look at. It is not something that we want to delay unduly, but it will go through the normal processes of Parliament. I have already given assurances to the noble Lord, Lord True, and other noble Lords that we will consult on this. It will not be a consultation that goes on for months and months, because we want to ensure that we have the legislation in place in good time, but there is a balance between working at pace and getting it right. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is smiling at me, but I can tell him that there is an urgency about this matter, and that is reflected in Darren Jones’s comments. I hope we soon have a draft that we can begin talking to noble Lords about.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the whole House will welcome the Leader’s Statement and the measured way in which she has delivered it. However, there are still scandals here. It is not just Peter Mandelson. There is a Baroness in this House who has ripped off the taxpayer by millions of pounds, and she is still a Member of this House. We need to find a way to remove her.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Mone. That comes back to the point I am making that the House wants to assure that it has the processes in place. The noble Baroness is at present on a leave of absence, which I do not think is a satisfactory position. I do not want to rush to judgment on any individual, but we need to have processes in place so that we can then act when any cases are brought to the attention of this House, or when we wish to do so. At the moment, there is no process in place at all for a Member to have a peerage removed, and the processes by which Members can be expelled from this House are rather limited. I can think of only one case in my time in this House when it was felt that a Member should be expelled, so we need to look at our processes.

We also need to be clear that I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Members in this House behave absolutely properly, with due diligence to their own affairs, and are here only because they want to serve the public and play a role in public life. We need to emphasise that. But where people fall short of those standards, are we confident that we have the right processes in place to take action where it is needed?

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House will undoubtedly agree with what the Leader of the House has just said and will welcome her commitment to transparency and candour. When we discussed these matters in the Chamber last Thursday, I had the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness about the letter that had been written to the Prime Minister by his predecessor, Gordon Brown, one year ago, when he was asking about

“the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers regarding the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein”.

I asked the noble Baroness:

“Did the Prime Minister know that his predecessor had made that request of the Cabinet Secretary? If he did not know, why was he not told? And if he did, why did he not instruct the Cabinet Secretary to undertake the investigation?”


The noble Baroness politely answered that she did not have those answers. She said:

“I do not know at this stage what the former Prime Minister asked for and whether the Prime Minister was informed, but I will find out”.—[Official Report, 5/2/26; cols. 1738-39.]


I appreciate that that was only on Thursday and this is Tuesday, but I wonder whether she has had the opportunity to find out and whether she can now answer the question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that as soon as I know, she will know. I have not been able to get an answer in this short time. We have asked the question. I am not clear whether it was a letter from Gordon Brown to the current Prime Minister or what form that request took, but we are looking at that at pace to see whether we can get an answer, and I assure her that we will do so.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise because I was slightly late, but as the noble Lord opposite was late—my Whips are saying that no, I cannot.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I am so sorry. The noble Lord was a few seconds late, so he was within the timetable.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Coming back to the issue of legislation and the need to ensure that there can be expulsion of Members in these circumstances, would she also accept that the expulsion of a Member is a very serious matter indeed and that, clearly, there need to be safeguards to ensure that this is not used in a perverse way by any future Government? In that regard, and given the need for urgency, I ask that there is an opportunity during the consultation process for Members of your Lordships’ House to actually debate the question so, I hope, we can reach a consensus on this.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are not bringing forward legislation for the expulsion of Members from your Lordships’ House; that is a matter for our Code of Conduct, and I am seeing the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, this week, and I wrote to him about that particular point. We will consult with Members, but there will be the normal process of legislation going through. The legislation I have spoken about concerns the circumstances in which, for example, somebody expelled from this House would not retain their peerage. That is what the legislation is about, not expulsion from this House; that is a matter for the Code of Conduct.

We have to ask: are we satisfied that, in all cases, we have got the Code of Conduct right? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, that it has been reviewed. I see no reason why, if other matters are brought to the House’s attention, specific issues cannot be looked at. I have had several representations more recently on other issues where Members have felt that the Code of Conduct has not been fully implemented. If you look at the Code of Conduct, often the commissioners wait until a complaint is made to them. Members have to be aware of what is in the Code of Conduct and at all times have that in mind and ensure that we are behaving with absolute integrity in relation to that. There are a number of things I think we can review, but the legislation is specifically on removing a peerage from somebody, not on expulsion from this House.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader for the way in which she introduced this Statement on this very serious situation. I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. In his raft of suggestions, he made one which I think is particularly important, which is the revision of the Cabinet Manual, which is well out of date. The Constitution Committee has drawn attention to the delays in updating the manual, which I think would address many of issues of protocol and procedure and tighten the whole situation within the Cabinet Office. Perhaps my noble friend could pay particular attention to where that process has got to and try, given the notion of urgency which she has addressed, to see whether that could be expedited.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think it was last updated in 2011. My recollection is that even then its introduction was mainly about Brexit, which seems rather dated at this time. I cannot give any guarantees that it is an urgent issue at the moment, but I take on board what she has said. I think there is a need to ensure all these codes are updated and reviewed because they are a point of guidance to help us navigate our way forward when there are difficult issues.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I want again to thank the Leader of the House for the way she is conducting this conversation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his penetrating questions because only by tough questions do you get the answers, and those answers of course need to be questioned still.

In the country I was born in, Uganda, we have a saying that a very badly misbehaved child brings disrepute to the parents first, then to their brothers, their sisters, and the whole of the household, but you must not think there is a transference of the behaviour of that naughty child to everybody in the household. Certainly, we must be vigilant, but we must not drive ourselves into thinking that, because of the bad behaviour of somebody, everybody is just like that. The people that I have met since I joined the House in 2005 are mostly honourable people. They do their work, they carry it out at all hours, particularly of late when we have been sitting until very late in the morning, and none of them is actually doing it out of self-interest. We have just had our conduct reviewed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. That is very robust. Please do not reinvent a similar thing as if we have not got it; we need to tell everybody out there that we have it.

Finally, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right: in all our debates, however heated they are, may we try and be polite to each other and ask questions; we are part of the same household.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when I first came into this House, I was told, pretty much, you could say anything you wanted as long as you were polite about it. That is actually quite a serious point. I think sometimes the tone of our debate and the politeness that we deploy when speaking lower the temperature, so we do not get the rudeness that we see in some other political forums.

On trust in public life, it is the bad apple syndrome, is it not? One person does something wrong and we are all tarred with the same brush: people think, “You’re in it for yourselves; you don’t believe in what you’re saying”. Yet we know that most people—the overwhelming majority of people in your Lordships’ House, as I said earlier—are here because of public service and they believe in what they do. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned about trust in public life, we do have a duty. The noble and right reverend Lord is right that we have a Code of Conduct and we should stick with that, but if he is asking me whether there is no area in it which can be reviewed and possibly improved, then I think, yes, we should say it can be reviewed and there is always room for improvement.

I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on one point, though. When he was speaking earlier, he described this as a part-time House. We are not a part-time House. We do not expect all Members to be here full-time; it is a full-time House where Members contribute when they can. I always wince slightly, when we sit longer and later than the other end of the building, that we should ever be called part-time.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly echo that final point and I suspect many of us regard this as a full-time House, in addition to which we do lots of other things, so it becomes a double full-time House from that point of view.

This is a very wide-ranging Statement, and a fairly eclectic range of questions have been asked by your Lordships. I would like to pick up just two points. First, there is sometimes a collective desire to rush forward in judgment about individuals. Sometimes those individuals perhaps deserve that judgement, but we must surely—and I hope the Leader of the House will confirm this—make sure there is proper due process about any decisions being taken about any individual in this context. Secondly, she has expressed the view that the Cabinet handbook and the guidance and so on are long overdue an overhaul, and I think many of your Lordships would welcome that. Could she also say what she thinks is the appropriate level of core skills and training that should be given to Ministers and prospective Ministers?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The due process point is important—I have tried to come back to that several times during the answers I have been giving this afternoon. That is why I declined to answer in detail the question from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, as well. There has to be a process in place so that, whatever the circumstances, we know the route to take. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that, and that is why I wanted to comment on some of the questions more thoroughly.

Core training is really interesting. I have been put in charge of training for Ministers. I am not aware of any core training for Ministers; other noble Lords who have been Ministers may think differently. It can be a bit patchy. Sometimes there is very good training. I remember having resilience training and crisis training in the past. I have had other issues where we have had to look in detail and see how we might react in certain circumstances. It is one of those jobs where there is no blueprint and Ministers do it differently depending on the job they have and the role they have. But one of the things I would advise any new Minister to do is to talk to somebody who has done the job before, from either party, because I think you would always get good advice from people who have experience.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard a lot of talk this evening about trust in public life. There are two aspects of trust that I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on. There is obviously the terrible betrayal of trust that we have seen recently in the case of Lord Mandelson, but I would like her view on a different kind of trust—the trust in our Prime Minister’s judgment. We have had too many examples, from the very early days in government of accepting gifts—which any of us, without process or training, could have said was a poor choice—to the turnover in appointments within No. 10. What would the noble Baroness say to the general public, who are questioning how long they can trust this Prime Minister’s judgment and whether saying sorry is enough?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have worked with the Prime Minister for a long time—since he first came into Parliament in 2015. I see a man of integrity and decency—a man who makes mistakes, owns those mistakes and seeks to make them right, and who is not afraid to apologise. I have not seen that in every Prime Minister.

The reason why the entire Cabinet yesterday made it very clear—as if there should ever have been any doubt—that it supported the Prime Minister was that we see him day in, day out. We see the judgments he makes day in, day out. If you look at what is happening in the world today—what is happening in Ukraine and the Prime Minister’s relationship with President Zelensky, how he has to manage difficult situations across the world, how he has proved to have a leadership role across the world and how he is regarded—you realise that he is absolutely the right man for the job. He made the statement yesterday that he had a mandate from this country to deliver change and the policies that we fought the last election on. I am impressed and I admire him. Whatever happens, he will deliver on that mandate.