Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 12 March to allow the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill and Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day; and to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day in the event it has been brought from the Commons.

Motion agreed.

Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.

President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.

There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our Armed Forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.

It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.

I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s attacks, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations, which have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out a drone heading towards a coalition base in Iraq housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant service men and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.

However, it is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which sets this out very clearly. We will keep the decision under review.

We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.

Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red Sea; it has facilitated Russia’s barbarism in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will be achieved at the negotiating table.

In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for all those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Foreign Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.

The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The FCDO phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs and others to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the UK, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.

The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.

We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. The statements from the President today have not added clarity. The Government are right not to have allowed the use of UK assets for offensive use. The US and Israeli Governments’ actions have put UK lives at risk, including our personnel.

Ayatollah Khamenei headed a homicidal regime which brutalised its own people, denied basic human rights and was deeply destabilising from the Gulf through to central Africa and Sudan. But changes of regimes are for the people of that country, not for the interests of another simply because that other has military prowess.

In June 2025, after the bombing of Iran by the US and IDF forces, we were told that that bombing was successful. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that

“our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons”.

IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that

“we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years”.

Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that

“reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve our objective is just completely preposterous”,

but this week he said that:

“They are probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material, and that’s really dangerous”.


We have been told that threats were imminent, and they were not.

The victims of the war are already clear, from the terrible scenes—now being investigated by the United States’ CENTCOM—of the bombing of a girls’ school to the civilians in Lebanon and beyond. There is every chance that the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable. Will the Leader state that His Majesty’s Government stress that protection of civilians in conflict is mandated in international humanitarian law and is not discretional?

These are the early days of this action. We are yet to know the full consequences, and they are hard to predict. They are even harder to predict since what our Government consider our closest ally—which, incidentally, was criticising us yesterday—is led by an untrustworthy President. He could halt the attacks when he wishes, because the objectives have not been outlined, and he could claim a mission accomplished as he defines it himself. He has said enough since the weekend to suggest that he would blame the Iranian population themselves if they did not rise up to topple a military regime—rising up in streets they are fearful of being in because they are being bombed.

There is also no clear endgame. We do not know whether the United States wants a democratically appointed Government, as the protesters do, or a more amenable revolutionary ideological Government and a managed transition to a more acceptable dictator. United States Senator Cotton said yesterday that he hoped that those who could become the leaders of Iran will be “auditioning to be the next Delcy Rodriguez”—that it is fine to be a dictator but one amenable to the United States. This is not what the civilian protesters want either. They are likely to be let down twice.

The regime could topple after a tipping point; if there is no internal security, then we will see some form of “Libyafication”, which does not necessarily bring stability to the region, or there could be an internal factional struggle, with internal strife, for which civilians will pay the penalty. The Iranian regime is one of an immense deep state with enormous state capture, which I have previously described as homicidal but not suicidal. We do not know how long it would take to exhaust its missile and drone stockpiles and the ability to replenish them. On the one hand, it is okay to be jingoistic, but we also have to be clear-eyed that there is not necessarily a clear endgame to what has been started. That is not necessarily in our interests or that of our Gulf allies.

There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas or economic relationships in the hub in the Gulf. We know that, the longer this continues, the increased likelihood there is of economic costs to the United Kingdom. Of the people impacted, businesses, individuals and tourists are likely to be disproportionately affected. With insurance cover now likely to be disrupted in shipping and tourism, can the Leader state what contingencies we have in place given the likelihood of sharp increases in insurance in shipping as well as the cost to our own personnel and our own citizens within the Gulf? Can the Leader give more indications of what a contingency might be for the evacuation of British nationals in the area?

New leadership in Hamas and Hezbollah—not eradication—and now in Iran, adds to greater unpredictability within the region and is likely to perpetuate greater economic instability. That said, I agree with the Statement; there is no justification for any instances of increased antisemitism or Islamophobia in Britain as a result of this. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on ensuring that all parts of our society have the right levels of reassurance and protection.

Finally, I wish to speak about something that was not referenced in the Statement and that is going on while this conflict is apparent. In the West Bank in Palestine, we see continuing violence and growing concerns over what may be an active annexation. At this time of tension with regard to Iran, what representations are His Majesty’s Government making to the Israeli Government that annexation of the West Bank is contrary to UK policy? It is right that we have recognised the Palestinian state, but there must be a Palestine to recognise.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting set of questions, as their views were diametrically opposed. But one thing the whole House unites around is abhorrence of the Iranian regime. I do not think there is any dissent on our view on that.

I was slightly puzzled by the comments by the noble Lord, Lord True. I think he has probably taken his lead from his leader in the House of Commons. Let me be clear: there were two separate decisions made in this regard, and we have always said that we will comply with international law.

On our second decision, we were asked to allow our bases to be used for defensive support, and we agreed to do so. The noble Lord’s comments seemed to say that, whatever the Americans decide and ask for, we should accede to their requests. We have to take a more measured approach than that, for two reasons. First, we have to act at all times in what is in the national interest of this country. Secondly, if we are to ask British troops to go into action, they need to be assured that there is a clear legal mandate for them to do so. To do anything else would be an irresponsible attitude.

The noble Lord talked about what happened over the last 14 years. I do not recall his party in any of those 14 years say that it supported military action against the regime. The request was made and we declined to take part in offensive action that is not in our remit but agreed to take defensive action when British citizens are under threat, and when requested to by allies in the region, because of the nature of the retaliation from the Iranian Government. That is completely clear and a rational, sensible approach to take in the national interest of our country.

The noble Lord asked whether we will keep the House informed of any measures regarding evacuation. Yes, of course. I managed to get further information today about the number of British nationals who have already registered their presence. The work of the Foreign Office in keeping in contact with them and giving advice is of the utmost importance.

What is clear is that the action we are taking is to protect British nationals. I do not know whether this expression has been used before: it is important that we do not just attack the arrows but the archers. That is why the focus is on those launch sites where missiles can be launched on to our friendly countries and British nationals. We are acting to protect them.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a number of questions. Most of his questions are for the American Government to answer rather than me. It is not the policy of this Government to take action for regime change, as he said. The American Government said that; we have not said that.

On the wider points that the noble Lord made, yes, the obligation to protect civilians is mandated. We cannot opt out of that obligation; it is not discretionary. Of course, it is always the case that civilians are killed and injured during military action, and we have seen that happen already. We have seen that American soldiers have been killed, and military from other countries. We saw the Kuwaiti flights today; the American soldiers were injured but they have survived, I understand. That is not discretionary.

The noble Lord asked about economic instability. That is something that the Treasury will keep under review at all times. Obviously, it is a priority.

The noble Lord talked about antisemitism and Islamophobia in this country. He will have heard in the Statement some of the measures that are being taken, but there is a duty on us all—as I said before, it is a responsibility of every Member of this House—to act in that regard and call it out whenever and wherever it happens. Undoubtedly there are concerns among the Jewish community, as we have heard.

The noble Lord asked about Palestine, and he will be aware of the recognition of Palestine. Whenever there is a serious incident in one part of the world, that does not absolve us of our responsibilities in other areas. There are numerous areas of conflict or tension. We should take care how we respond in a way that is in the national interest, protects British citizens and abides by international law.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we now have 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. In order that we can get as many noble Lords in as possible, I remind noble Lords that their contributions should be questions, not speeches.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned international law. I suggest to her—and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place—that no rational international law could prohibit the United States and Israel from taking pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons when it is the avowed policy of that state to use such weapons to annihilate another sovereign state, Israel. It cannot be rational to say to the United States and Israel, “You must wait until Iran has developed such weapons and is about to use them”, because then it will be too late to take action against Iran.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

How the United States and Israel act when they feel under threat is a matter for them. The noble Lord, Lord True, tuts, but I suggest that he calms down a bit; I think it is a bit rude to be tutting from a sedentary position. That is a matter for the United States and for Israel, while of course we will always answer for and defend our actions and act within international law in this country’s interests.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, many people went to Israel to celebrate tonight the festival of Purim, which is the story of Queen Esther saving the Jewish people in Persia, somewhat ironically, instead of which they are in bomb shelters awaiting missiles to attack. They are ashamed and embarrassed, as are many people, of the actions of the Prime Minister in prevaricating, delaying and dithering, and then supporting half-heartedly, as the noble Baroness has said herself, attacks against the evil regime of Iran that has perpetrated attacks in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained. In opposition, Labour called for the IRGC to be proscribed. They have been in office for I do not know how long, but nothing has happened. The reason given for not proscribing the IRGC was because we needed an embassy in Tehran. What is the excuse now?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There are two points that I will raise with the noble Lord. First, I completely, utterly and totally reject his characterisation of the decision that has been taken. There were two separate decisions. If he thinks it is acceptable to say to British soldiers and our military, “You can go into action without a clear international legal basis to do so”, he is mistaken. We are quite clear on that, and I am confident in the decisions taken by the Prime Minister on my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General’s advice.

Secondly, on the IRGC, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Coaker about this earlier, because he remembers discussing this issue when the party opposite voted against proscribing the IRGC—although the noble Lord did not; I think he was the only Member on his side to vote with us.

The noble Lord will know that we do not comment on ongoing discussions or what is under consideration, but perhaps there is something I can say that will help him. He will be aware of Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of Jonathan Hall’s stand-alone report last year, where he made the point that existing counterterrorism legislation, when applied to state threats, is not as fit for purpose as it should be, and that creates challenges. He has made recommendations, and we are committed to implementing all of them. If the noble Lord would like more information on that, I can supply it; I think he was unaware of it. That takes us a step forward, not particularly regarding the IRGC but in how we respond to state threats in dealing with issues such as proscription. I will be reporting back to the House on that issue in due course.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I also thank her, and through her the Government, for the intelligence brief I had this afternoon on the current situation. Clearly, President Trump and now His Majesty’s Opposition seem to have forgotten Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rule about the china shop—once you break it, you own it. It is not clear from what has been said publicly that there is any way forward or strategy on what is going to happen in Iran. As a former Defence Minister, I know the detailed legal constraints that are taken into consideration when the strikes take place. Are there those same legal constraints around the use of the bases which we are allowing the Americans to use?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, the answer would be that all the decisions taken are around self-defence and the protection of our allies. It is a defensive mechanism, not an offensive decision that was taken.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, some of those who wanted a more robust legal position by the Government point to Tony Blair’s speech and doctrine of a quarter of a century ago about the responsibility to intervene against oppressive regimes—that was applied in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans. Given Iran’s record of terror and aggression, which the Prime Minister talks about in the Statement, I wonder whether the Government think that anything remains of Tony Blair’s doctrine.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is talking about two slightly different things. If I recall correctly, that speech was made before Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He also spoke about humanitarian intervention, which was not military intervention, if I have understood correctly.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I can be the only Member of this House who has close family members living and working in the Gulf region who find themselves in possible physical jeopardy at this time. I want to probe the Leader on the legal justification for the Government’s initial decisions. Those of us who have been lawyers know that international law is not a precise science capable of delivering an absolutely authoritative conclusion. Is it not significant that the Prime Ministers in Australia and Canada—who are both from the centre-left, like her own Government, and both of whom operate in a similar legal system to ours—have decided that this was not an objection to supporting what the US and Israeli Governments did?

Is there not a real-world reality here, which is that to protect the very large numbers of British citizens who are now in physical jeopardy—and it must have been understood that there would be a retaliation by Iran—the best way would have been to ensure that the initial strikes were the most effective possible, in what the noble Baroness rightly says is the key objective, in taking out the offensive weapons, drones, and missiles and stopping them being launched at all? If the Government had opened the way for our bases to be used to support this, there would have been better protection available for those who now find themselves in danger.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, my Lords, I pray in aid with some pride that I am not a lawyer—I know that there are many in your Lordships’ House—but I thought the whole point of the law was that it was quite precise in many cases, and that is why we have certain decisions. The noble Lord asked about Australia and Canada. My understanding is that neither Australia nor Canada have been asked for any military support. They have spoken in support but have not been asked to provide military support, so there are two great differences there. The reality is that what we saw in the retaliation from Iran was reckless and indiscriminatory. Therefore, the basis on which the Prime Minister has made the decision to allow UK bases to be used, within international law, is that it is in self-defence and in support of our allies. It is the nature of the response that we saw from Iran on countries that were not involved at all and had not expected it. That is the basis for the self-defence reason in taking the action that we have.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, in the other place this afternoon the Prime Minister referenced “the mistakes of Iraq”. Do the Government accept that while it can be credibly argued that deposing Saddam Hussein’s regime ushered in the environment for Islamist terror to be exported across the region and to the West, in this instance we have a country—an Iranian regime—which is the chief exporter already of Islamist terrorism around the world? It would therefore be a false lesson to learn that you can make the world safer by, in effect, keeping this regime as a credible negotiating partner.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord talks about the lessons of Iraq; I think the lessons of Iraq that he learned are perhaps different from those that I did, and certainly, from those the Prime Minister is making his judgment on. The Prime Minister has been clear on the legal basis for his judgment and the purpose of the action that is being taken. It is very much the case that we want to take out those launchpads from which missiles are being launched on to allies of this country, putting British lives at risk, and that is the basis of it.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, some of your Lordships will know of my personal interest in this topic, having experienced at first hand something of the brutality of the Iranian regime. While I certainly would not lament the end of that regime, I share the concern of those who express it that this war is neither legal nor necessary, and that peace is best secured by returning to the negotiating table—which incidentally seemed to be showing some signs of working. Does the noble Baroness agree that while the Islamic republic will certainly have been weakened by these strikes, the regime’s survival instinct is not to be underestimated? Does she agree that while Iranians must decide their own future, western Governments should be cautious about asking protesters to further degrade that regime’s capacity by protesting on the streets, when we know that the Iranian security service will likely use that as a pretext for intensified repression? A bloody descent into a Syrian-style civil war is in no one’s interest and is surely best avoided.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as we sit in this House, and we feel safe and secure, our thoughts must be with those across the region, but particularly in Iran, who will be fearing what comes next and what their lives are going to be in the weeks to come. It is not for us to urge anyone to fight back, but I think there will be a natural reaction from people who have been protesting. The right reverend Prelate is right to speak of caution: if we look at how many protesters in Iran have been killed—murdered by the security forces—we realise how dangerous this has become for them. I appreciate that there are lessons to be learned from what happened in the past, and I agree with her on the survival instinct of the regime, but it is the right action to take to try to remove the weaponry they have to wreak havoc on others, including their own people.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her wisdom and the Statement that she has repeated. Among the many important questions that this conflict raises is the prospect of a two-state solution. In a Statement about the Middle East, it is important to look at all the core elements of this debate. One part of the two-state solution must be the building of an effective Palestinian state that has the rule of law. The Government’s recognition of Palestine was a major step forward, and I congratulate Ministers on that work. I also draw attention to the active support that the Government are giving, and indeed the previous Government gave, to the building of a future Palestinian state through the Palestinian Authority. This is work that I am personally involved in. Can my noble friend reassure me that the importance of building a Palestinian state is not diminished by the conflict going on around this area? Indeed, it may be more important than it has ever been.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a similar point to that made earlier: conflict in one part of the world should not distract us from seeking to resolve conflict in another part of the world. It is very difficult when you look at the various hotspots around the world at the moment. I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend has done on this over many years. He is absolutely right. Even when it seems difficult, holding out hope for a two-state solution, with a viable Palestine and a safe and secure Israel, is so important. The whole area needs that safety and security. The conflict in Iran obviously has wider implications across the region, but just because we are involved in, and are trying to resolve, one issue, that does not mean that we can ignore the many other issues that bring conflict to the world.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in late 2024, the UK announced that it was joining, as a third party, the US-Bahrain Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, happily shortened to C-SIPA. This treaty is aimed at contributing to a fully integrated regional security architecture, and we duly signed and ratified it. How do our obligations to this treaty reflect on what goes forward, particularly as this organisation was aimed at maintaining open seaways from Bahrain through to the Strait of Hormuz? What is the role of this treaty going forward, and how do the Government view our legal obligations to it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer on that treaty, but I can say that Bahrain is one of the countries that has been under attack and that it has approached us for help and support. We will continue to regard it as an ally and work with it. I can take up the issue of the treaty in due course. The noble Lord asks whether I will write to him. If I have the information, I will, but I want to ensure that we work with Bahrain at the moment to do what we can to protect its security and safety.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Leader referred to a “clear legal mandate” that would be needed by our troops if they were to act in the defensive way in which the Government have said that they may be able to do. I looked at the summary of the Government’s legal advice, which was rather restricted to

“acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate”.

Does the Leader think that that is a “clear legal mandate” that can be given by officers to troops whom we ask to go into dangerous situations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a summary of the UK’s legal position. The Prime Minister will have looked at all the legal advice that he received. The noble Lord knows that we do not publish all the legal advice, but the information that the Prime Minister had will have given him confidence that there was a clear legal mandate for us to make the decision that we have to support America and Israel in their defensive role of protecting British citizens and safety in the region.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I also have people in Dubai who cannot get out, but I want to concentrate purely on the effects on domestic policy. One thing that is certain about what has happened is that it has made our streets that little bit less safe for Jews. We have seen a wave of antisemitism take over the community. That antisemitism has largely been funded and activated by Iran and the revolutionary guard. We know and understand that the Government will do their best to protect British Jews, but that is not enough, because we are largely creating a society in which a British Jew cannot get married, go to school or go to a community event without having a guard outside. We need not just to talk about implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism but to implement it. It needs to be implemented by everyone in government and in power in this country.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw last week the delegation of parents of children affected by antisemitism. I was struck by one woman who said very clearly—I hope the noble Baroness will agree with this—that British Jews do not want extra security; they want to feel secure. Will the Government commit to making British Jews secure?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think everybody would say that we want not security but to feel safe, which is a basic human right for anybody in this country. The degree of antisemitism we have seen on the streets of the UK has been shocking and distressing, but those in the Jewish community have felt it in their soul because it is their very essence that is being attacked. I am sure the noble Lord is not questioning—I do not think anyone can question—the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure that safety for British Jews. I am not sure what the noble Lord’s question was at the end. Do I agree with the lady who said she wants to feel safe? Yes, of course I do, and we will do everything in our power to help with that.

It is the responsibility of everybody in this House and across the country to support those efforts. Whenever we see antisemitism, if we fail to call it out we are colluding in it. I urge everybody to be very conscious of that and to think about what we all can do to make this a safer place for all British Jews.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgment to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will persuade the public only that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt.

However, there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation. We need to know not only about the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network but how far others in the UK were involved and whether any of the trafficking of young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential government information to rich financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust in not only our political elite but the City of London and its links to New York banks. Then there are the rumours of Russian links with all this. It is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place.

We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication—particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation—but we ask the Government to publish and explain to the public as much as possible, in order to rebuild public trust.

I hope the Minister also recognises that the British Government are now in a position where they can and should set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal: no recent arrests in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents and an Administration doing their best to deny any involvement, contrasted with the Government and Head of State in London taking the limited British involvement seriously.

Democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these Benches therefore encourage our Government to demonstrate in everything they do in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all these documents that will embarrass the US Government and America’s financial, high-tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.

The previous Conservative Government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because its deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. I again encourage the Government to publish a much fuller version of the ISC’s Russia report to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and as helpful background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions; I will try to answer as many as possible. I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s suggestion about delay in dealing with this. There are a lot of documents to be produced. The Government have been very clear that there is no hesitation at all in complying fully and completely with the humble Address. I hope that reassures her.

There is no scheduled timetable but it is important that, with so many documents, we do not wait until we have every document but get them out in tranches. Some of those may be out of sequence, in a sense, but all government departments have been asked to be very clear that all documents must be kept, whatever form they are in, and that information and messages must be kept so they can be fully disclosed.

The noble Baroness asked for confirmation on what is being withheld. Only two areas are being withheld. Information will be sent to the ISC. The Government will make a judgment on whether that information has an impact on international security, international relations and national security. If the Government make that judgment, it will then be given to the ISC to assess. There is a clear process and an assessment of the Government’s judgment on that when it is sent to the ISC. The other issue—which I understand is one document, or maybe a suite of documents—is the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson by No. 10. That is the information that is currently with the Metropolitan Police. There is obviously a delay in publishing that, but as soon as we are able to do so we will. I take into account the Lord Speaker’s comments that nothing should be allowed to prejudice justice.

The noble Baroness asked what “early March” means. I am tempted to say that early March means early March. I do not know quite how further to describe early March: does it mean 1 March or 2 March? It means early March. It will be published in early March and I expect we will see the information produced in the next couple of weeks or so.

The noble Baroness also raised the slightly curious point about the independence of the ISC, which the House of Commons raised as well. I hope I have not misunderstood—she is shaking her head at me, so perhaps I did—but the ISC has to be able to conduct its work without fear or favour and have the full confidence of the whole of Parliament in doing so. Although the staff are employed by the Cabinet Office, she will know from her experience of the Civil Service how very much they work for the ISC.

Having said that, I understand that there have been discussions about whether those staff should be employed directly by the ISC or whether it is more appropriate that there is a pool of people who work for the ISC and may return to other Civil Service jobs. The important thing is that they have the resources to do their job. I have absolute confidence in the Members of this House who are members of the ISC—the noble Lord, Lord West, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who is behind me, keeping an eye on me—to ensure they do their work fully, completely and properly. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will agree.

The noble Baroness commented that the Metropolitan Police cannot dictate to the House and asked whether the Government accept their duty that any documents held should be released afterwards. I have already answered that: they will be released where we are able to do so and where that does not jeopardise any possible further action the police may want to take.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, addressed how all of us can make mistakes. He referred to mistakes by past Governments and by this Government. Indeed, I heard his party leader on the radio this morning talking about mistakes that he had made. When mistakes are made, three things must happen. First, there must be an admission that a mistake has been made. Secondly, how it happened must be understood. Unless you understand how and why it happened, you cannot take the action that is needed to protect yourself and others from making similar mistakes in the future. Thirdly, an apology is required. I will never suggest that no Government ever made a mistake—it is human life—but to understand how and why, to put the wrong right and to apologise are important steps forward.

The noble Lord asked the Government to publish and explain as much as possible. Yes, transparency—particularly in an era of distrust of politicians, which we have been in for some time—democratic accountability, the rule of law, and being as open and transparent as possible are important. Who would have expected, when the Epstein papers, documents and emails were released, that this would reverberate around the world? It is uncomfortable for any Government to find themselves in a position where the information in those emails was completely unknown by them. The sense of betrayal, hurt, anger and upset in seeing those documents and that information is enormous. I assure the noble Lord on that.

The noble Lord says that there are rumours about Russian influence. It is very difficult to do anything about rumours. I worry about rumours. It is evidence that we must work on. Any evidence that can be made available should be made available. However, he will understand, in talking about the Russia report, that it is about finding the balance between transparency and international relations and security. I am grateful for the work that the ISC is doing on this, and generally, as I think the whole House must be, to ensure that it is confident that this balance is right and that it can work with the Government on this. However, the responsibility for national security ultimately lies with the Government.

The noble Lord says that there is further embarrassment to come. I am less worried about embarrassment than I am about not doing justice to the young women and girls who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein. There are times in life when we have to take a bit of embarrassment to ensure that justice is done.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back- Bench questions. It is Back-Bench questions, not speeches.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised ISC staff. Their job, and that of the committee, was made incredibly difficult by the previous Conservative Government cutting the budget and interfering with the appointments to the committee. The committee met the Prime Minister last year. This was the first time that the committee had met a Prime Minister in 10 years. Following that, the budget was increased. Negotiations are ongoing about moving the staff outside of the Cabinet Office. I assure your Lordships that those staff are dedicated, hard-working individuals who work very closely with the committee. I ask my noble friend: if the committee requires more resources, will those resources be given to deal with this task?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his point about the staff. I tried to do it justice but, as chair of the committee, he did it much better than I could. It is important that there is no question that the committee and the House have full confidence in the staff and the work that they do. Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made it clear that there are ongoing discussions. It is important that the resources that the ISC needs are available. I understand that discussions on that are taking place.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to things we did not know. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he confirmed in the House of Commons that he did know that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted for child sex trafficking, and he still appointed him as ambassador to the United States of America. That is a bit of a problem.

Can I pick up on something that the Leader of the House said about decision-making? The humble Address said that all information in the terms of the Address would be published, except where it was prejudicial to national security or international relations. I understood that the process of pulling together all those documents was being overseen by the Cabinet Secretary, who I understand has delegated that to the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, and that it would be that official who made the decisions about what was prejudicial and what therefore went to the ISC. The Leader of the House has just said that that decision is going to be taken by the Government, by which we normally mean Ministers. Can she clarify whether the decision about which documents are prejudicial and will therefore go to the ISC will be taken by the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, who has been delegated that task by the Cabinet Secretary, or by Ministers?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises two points, the first of which concerns what the Prime Minister did or did not know. I do not think anybody was aware of the extent of the activities of Jeffrey Epstein and the relationship between him and Peter Mandelson until these documents were released. The other point is the information that the Prime Minister and No. 10 have given to the Metropolitan Police. Questions were asked of Lord Mandelson and the answers that were forthcoming to the Prime Minister were not, as we now understand, the case. The Prime Minister feels that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson then. It is the extent of that relationship that is really important.

On the humble Address, I was talking about government in the widest sense. The Cabinet Secretary has delegated this to the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, who will be the person sifting the documents to ensure that the documents sent to the ISC are those that the Government have withheld for reasons of international security and international relations and our national security.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire raised the suggestion we have seen in the press that Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking victims could possibly have been brought into the UK through private airports. I remember 20 years ago this issue being raised in relation to the victims of extraordinary rendition, in which I am afraid the UK Government colluded. Has that loophole really not been closed? Have there been no immigration or security controls on who comes into this country in private jets?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know whether the case is exactly as the noble Baroness describes it. What I do know is that all evidence is being looked at to see whether there is any evidence of such trafficking. That means going back through records over some time to see what is available. If there is any evidence of trafficking, of course the appropriate action should be taken as a matter of urgency.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for the way in which she is approaching this discussion and the answers that she has given. Can she confirm the situation about the humble Address? Obviously, it was constructed by the leader of the Official Opposition with a view to perhaps causing maximum embarrassment, but that is the job of opposition, and we should not be surprised at that. I understand that the framing of it potentially covers all diplomatic cables, many of which would automatically be copied to the UK ambassador to the United States. Can my noble friend confirm that part of the task that the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office has been given is to judge whether or not those can be released? Is there not an important principle that releasing diplomatic cables or material relating to diplomatic cables is prejudicial to the interests of this country? Even if that diplomatic cable said what a nice person whoever it was is and that they had a really good discussion, the fact of releasing some, but not all, cables raises the question about those which are redacted. Is that not in itself likely to be prejudicial to the national interest? This is an important process, which requires a great deal of diligence.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. It is an important process. Our international relations with countries across the world where we have diplomats and where they have provided information in the UK’s national interests may at times be sensitive. The humble Address is quite clear that, where there are issues of national security or international relations, those documents and that information will be passed to the ISC for it to make a judgment. To come back to my noble friend’s point about whether it was intended to be embarrassing, the truth may be embarrassing at times but if it leads to justice and a better outcome then it is the right thing to do. The Government have no problems complying fully with the humble Address.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to take this very seriously and to publish in tranches. Given that many days have now elapsed, will the Government publish a tranche tomorrow to show good faith, so that the proper process of scrutiny can begin?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know whether the noble Lord heard my earlier answer. We will not be publishing documents tomorrow but as soon as possible. I imagine that it will be in the next couple of weeks.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, the House appreciates that the noble Baroness has had to answer a lot of questions in a short time, but she has not as yet answered the final question asked of her a few moments ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about whether the Government will commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which have been temporarily withheld—for example, because of a police investigation—together with the reason in each case. The more complicated this matter becomes, the more helpful it would be if the Government could give that information. If the noble Baroness cannot immediately answer that question, will she commit to answering it in writing to the noble Baroness and the Opposition as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have no problem answering questions at the Dispatch Box—it is probably one of the highlights of my day.

I am slightly puzzled by the question, though I will take it back. It seems to me that, if it has already been said what the document is that is being withheld from the Metropolitan Police—that information was announced in the House of Commons yesterday and I have said it here today—and if we then publish a list of documents that are being sent to the ISC because the issues are significant to international relations or national security, does that not give more information that could undermine national security or international relations? There is an issue of transparency, but transparency does not extend to such issues. It has already been accepted that the documents will be sent to the ISC. I will look at this, but the noble Baroness should have faith that if the ISC is receiving those documents then it can look at them. If it is that she wants a list of confidential information that is being given to the ISC, I am not sure that that takes the House any further, or whether that might undermine the work of the ISC. I am not sure that it is a helpful suggestion.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for the clarity of her answers. Will she confirm that, once the ISC has decided that a document should be disclosed, notwithstanding any concern that the Government may have had about its implications for national security or foreign relations, the Government will comply with the decision of the ISC?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. My understanding is that the exact details of how this will work in practice are still being discussed between the Government and the ISC. Those discussions will be concluded this week, but the Government have no interest in withholding information if it does not relate to international relations or national security. I hope that, if we get it right, the issue will not occur in the first place, but those discussions will take place between the Government and the ISC this week to conclude the terms of reference.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her answer. I make the point that the then Opposition moved and invoked an humble Address on a number of occasions during the Brexit negotiations, at very critical junctures. At that stage, it was not necessarily in the national interest to reveal all the information that the Her Majesty’s Government were using.

I just take the noble Baroness back to the report on due diligence. Surely it is for parliamentarians and the wider public to make a judgment not only on the veracity of the due diligence report presented by the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister but on the Prime Minister’s judgment in what he did with that report. It seems odd, and perhaps the noble Baroness will explain why it was, that a charge of misconduct in a public office is inextricably linked with the release or otherwise of the due diligence report that was presented to the Cabinet Office. Finally, will she say what is an acceptable delay before that very important document on which we will judge the Prime Minister’s judgment is published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord’s comments on the humble Address were aimed at. He has heard no complaints whatever from me or from this Dispatch Box about complying fully and totally with the humble Address. I do not think I made any complaints about humble Addresses previously, as the noble Lord implied, so I am not quite sure what he was saying.

I can also tell him that no charges have yet been brought of misconduct in public office. The evidence being looked at has come to the fore, post due diligence and security vetting, from the Epstein files. Nobody in this House or outside it could have had any warning, or a crystal ball or anything, that could have indicated the extent of those messages and what they contained. So, if any charges are brought of misconduct in public office, it will come from those emails that were released. I will wait and let the police do their work on that, to see whether charges are brought against any of the individuals who have so far been arrested.

Standards in Public Life

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[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.

[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.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My honourable friend Lisa Smart said in the House of Commons yesterday:

“We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/26; col. 289.]


I agree with those words profoundly. One of the most upsetting elements of the release of the information from the United States has been the network of rich, wealthy, connected enablers, and the casual way in which they treated vulnerable girls and young women.

We agree with the Prime Minister on one element: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must proactively work with any authorities who may wish to take this forward. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has raised associated issues of how we make changes to uphold how we carry out our politics. I will refer to those in a moment. We called for the police to carry out investigations into Peter Mandelson’s activities, and are happy that they are now doing so, but we believe a public inquiry is now needed into the wider circumstances. We have raised that, and we hope the Government will accept the need for serious questions to be answered on not just process but judgment and actions.

A Minister said this morning to the media that, when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, the Government were relying on an established vetting process. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, as a civil servant, cannot reply in this House to questions that it has raised, but there are questions about securing independence in the process going forward and the role of the Cabinet Secretary. Any process must be conducted independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary.

We usually believe that enhanced vetting procedures for our most significant diplomatic postings should address whether the person who is being vetted lies. It is not acceptable simply for the Prime Minister to rely on the fact that Peter Mandelson lied; that is the point of an enhanced vetting process. But if elements of that process are set aside, because of either the relationship with or the judgment of the Prime Minister, we have to ask some very serious questions, especially as the Prime Minister knew of Peter Mandelson’s contact with a convicted paedophile and of their financial relationship, which had been reported as long ago as “Dispatches” programmes in 2019.

There is also a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest with Peter Mandelson and lobbying interests. Clear information was provided on using public office for public gain; why was this overruled in the appointment of him as our ambassador?

We welcome the Government’s change of heart on supplying information to the ISC, and we look forward to its work being carried out in a very speedy way. But we also believe that the Ministerial Code must be looked at very considerably now. There is little point in having a Ministerial Code that is self-policed by the Prime Minister if there are clearly conflicts of interest in those processes.

If Peter Mandelson had not resigned from this House, we have insufficient mechanisms of expulsion for those who bring the House into disrepute. These Benches called for action on this prior to the general election, and we do so again today. We will work with the Leader and across the House to bring about changes. We need to act now, before we are asked to do so, on the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, too. A self-regulating House needs to get its own house in order.

We also need to act immediately to remove Peter Mandelson from the peerage roll to stop him using that title for the future. Retirement from this House does not automatically mean removal from the peerage roll. It should be unacceptable for him to be able to trade on a peerage title in the future, which is allowed for if someone continues to be on the peerage roll. I checked this morning and he is still on it, so I would like to know if the Leader can indicate whether the Government are moving on that area.

We will also support the Government to accelerate any legislation to remove his peerage entirely. He cannot be allowed to trade on a title after betraying his own Government, this House and the public’s trust of someone who held public office. It is a privilege to serve in this House, not a right. There are obligations on someone who is on the peerage roll but insufficient means of correction, and they need to be addressed on a cross-party basis and urgently.

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

My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. At the forefront of all of our minds are those who were victims of a vile paedophile and how powerful people had a network in which there was no respect and it was almost as if they were casual playthings for their benefits. It is quite a horrendous thought, the consequences of which last for those young girls and women for the rest of their lives. They are often tragic consequences for them personally and for those who know them. I think a lot of this would never have come to light had it not been for their bravery in being prepared to stand up, be identified—which is a huge thing to do—and speak out. That has been at the forefront of my mind in all this, and it is one of the things that I find most distressing about it all.

On the noble Baroness’s questions on security vetting and investigations, as much as possible needs to be in the public domain. That is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee for taking on that role. Everything that is identified and deemed to be a matter of national security in some way will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

At the moment a lot of people are feeling very betrayed that their trust has been abused. The world outside basically thinks that you cannot trust any politician. We know from our work in this House—many of us have worked in politics for many years—that trust is the cornerstone of what we do, between and across parties. When that trust is betrayed, the people who feel it most keenly are often those who have put their trust in people who never earned it and did not deserve it. That is something for us all to reflect on going forward, which is why it is so important that information should be made as public as possible.

It is a completely understandable frustration that the police have said that some information cannot be released yet because of the integrity of their investigation. Information has been passed to the police but, if there is to be justice, particularly for victims, the police will have to decide what to do with that information. With that caveat, we will release the information when it is available, but it has been given to the police and to the ISC. We will do that as a matter of some urgency, and I give the noble Baroness that assurance, most definitely.

My only point of difference with the noble Lord is on a public inquiry—I am sure that will be looked at in due course—partly because of my experience of public inquiries. I initiated one as a Minister and it took something like 17 years to report. That length of time is completely and totally unacceptable to me. We have to do this quickly but thoroughly, and one should not compromise the other.

The noble Lord made some other points on vetting going forward. There is an established process, which was followed. If that process is found to be inadequate, it needs to be looked at.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness also raised an issue about who undertakes this. The Cabinet Secretary will at all times have the guidance of an independent KC on this, and will meet regularly with the ISC. The precise details of how that will happen have yet to be worked out, but the key is to ensure that all information is released. There is no desire on anybody’s part to try to hide something or cover it up; it has to be very transparent.

The noble Lord referred to lobbying interests and public office for profit. It is not just about the Ministerial Code; that was updated and this Prime Minister has strengthened it so that the adviser on this, the person in charge of the Ministerial Code, can initiate inquiries without reference to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given them that greater independence. But I think this goes beyond that. Some of the emails that we have read, about information being given to an individual who may or may not have used it—we do not know—need to be investigated further. That information is available to the police as part of their investigations.

The noble Lord also asked about our mechanisms in this House. Being a Member of this House is an immense privilege and honour. I remember being in the other place: to sit on those Benches, I had to face an electorate, knock on doors and talk to people. It was a long process, and I could be deselected and unelected—as I was. We do not face that in this House. We are appointed. At the moment, we are appointed for life unless we choose to retire, and we have a committee looking at the participation issue now and we may have a retirement age.

But I think we need to go further, and the Prime Minister has said this as well. If standards are such that we feel someone should not be a Member of this House, do we really think it is appropriate for them to retain that title for life? It is not appropriate and it should not happen. The Government are preparing that legislation, and I will work with all parties on bringing it forward. I want to ensure that we get this right. That is not a reason for delay; it is to ensure thoroughness. This may not be the only case that we ever have, and I want to ensure that this House can hold its head up in the future to ensure that we believe in the integrity of every single Member. Getting that right and ensuring that this legislation has a long-term sustainable application is really important, so I will bring that forward and we will discuss it.

The noble Lord also mentioned the Code of Conduct. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I wrote to him on Monday, in light of this, to ask him to look at our own Code of Conduct and whether we think it is fit for purpose. In our manifesto, we said that we would strengthen the circumstances for the removal of Peers who are disgraced. I am asking the committee to look at that in its work, and I think the whole House will want to work together on this. So there is work going forward, but we have to take responsibility for it as a House. If we fail to protect the integrity of the body, every single Member of this House will face those kinds of criticisms. I have great faith in this House and its Members but, if people let us down, they do not deserve the right to be here.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we now move on to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. The House wants succinct questions, getting in as many noble Lords as possible. The House does not want speeches—this is not the time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has said, but I have two specific questions relating to Lord Mandelson. One is: why was he allowed to retain his shareholding in Global Counsel during the time he was ambassador to the United States? Who made that decision, and on what evidential basis was it made? The second point is: does the Minister really believe it is acceptable that I have asked three times since December—two months ago—whether Lord Mandelson received taxpayers’ funding via a severance payment when he was sacked as ambassador, and the Government have hitherto not answered the question? Is she now in a position to answer it? If so, how much of taxpayers’ money was given to this disgraced figure?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord: I do not have the answers to those questions for him, but I will get them. I do not think he has asked me about the severance pay, but I will ensure that he gets an answer. On the shareholdings, can I come back to him in writing? We will get an answer on both those points.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I have spent some of this morning looking at the US Department of Justice’s Epstein library. I note that the emails have a very matey tone and therefore obviously sit in a sea of emails over an extended period of time. Although these emails are obviously to a private email address of Peter Mandelson’s and are about market-sensitive things, there may well be emails about other things. I wondered, therefore, what steps were being taken to protect that email account and make sure that things are not being destroyed. I wondered also whether it would be sensible to contact the US Department of Justice, because it has quite a lot of other emails that it has not yet loaded on to the Epstein library, and there may well be other things of great interest.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Earl that every effort has been made to protect all evidence and information that may be available. The Department of Justice has said that it has now downloaded all the emails from Jeffrey Epstein, but the noble Earl will understand that there are ongoing inquiries around those. I suppose the greatest assurance I can give him is that every effort will be made to get all relevant information, because, unless we have that relevant information, we cannot necessarily take appropriate action. So I can give him that assurance.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what role Peter Mandelson played as ambassador in convincing the American Government of the merits of the Chagos deal? Did he discuss it personally with the President and the Secretaries of State? In so doing, did he honestly tell them about the Pelindaba treaty, about the fact that we have an opt-out from juridical judgments of the ICJ, and other important matters, or did he, as was his custom, conceal the truth?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the issue of the Chagos Islands—which I know the noble Lord has strong feelings on—is not entirely relevant to the discussion we are having today, which I think is about the victims of a known paedophile and going beyond that. Obviously, an ambassador would have those discussions—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the noble Lord did not heckle from a sedentary position, as I want to try to answer his question. Obviously, an ambassador has ongoing discussions with the Administration during the time they are ambassador; other officials in the UK Government will be having those discussions with the American Government as well, and they are ongoing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I note the Minister’s mention of the desperate need to re-establish political trust. I think all of us, on all Benches, need to understand how much Westminster politics is distrusted at the present moment and how we all, on all Benches, need to work together to restore that. Can she say a little more about what the Government plan to do on reforming the way Westminster and Whitehall work to restore public trust? There is a suggestion, for example, that, when Ministers take office, they should take oaths before the House to which they belong. On other measures, further reform of the House of Lords has also been mentioned. That would be welcome to know.

Can I also ask that the Government pursue the possibility of a Russian connection in this Epstein network? We know the Polish Government are very concerned about this. We see in the files the reference to a number of Russian connections—Russian women—involved. We have had substantial Russian penetration of British politics in the last 15 years. It may well be continuing, and we need to make sure, as we want to re-establish public trust, that we get it out in the open if it is still happening.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will take the noble Lord’s last point first. All avenues of investigation are open. All information on the national security issues will be passed to the ISC so that those issues can be looked at in detail. I have to say that, with several million documents, I certainly have not been through all the emails, but I find those that I have read pretty unedifying and unpleasant to read. There are people whose job it is to go through all these, look at every possible link and get to the bottom of whatever has happened.

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of political trust. If you think about the work this House does, most of it is painstakingly detailed work on legislation to try to get things right. I do not believe anyone in this House comes into public service to do a bad job, but, if things go wrong and Members do not reach the standards we would expect of them—and that the public would expect of us—then they abdicate their right to be here.

On the points the noble Lord makes about the Ministerial Code, for example, that has already been strengthened: there is an independent level that was not there previously. Previously, the Prime Minister of the day could decide if somebody had broken the code and should be investigated. Now, it is for the holder of that code to make that decision on an investigation, which I think is a big step forward.

Legislation is currently being drafted about removing peerages from those who should no longer be entitled to have them. There will be discussion on exactly what form that will take and how we do that. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we want to get that right so that we are, in a sense, future-proofing so that, should any circumstances arise in the future where we think someone should not just not be a Member of this House but not be entitled to hold a peerage, that can be done in a processed, fair way. But it has to happen, and I think we can all think of other examples where it should have happened.

How do we restore trust? If I knew the answer to that, they would probably make me Prime Minister. But it is a really serious point, because this has been going on for a very long time. Trust in politicians has been eroded over time, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. It does not actually matter why: we need to ensure that we do everything we can—that, in our parliamentary and public-facing lives, we behave in a way such that people feel they can give us the trust we feel we deserve. If we do not, we have to move out of the public arena.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the comprehensive Statement from the Leader of the House, but may I raise just one issue? There seem to be some questions to be answered about the role of the Cabinet Secretary in this. Is it appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the role of the Cabinet Secretary, working with the KC, is to ensure that all available documents are made public, that what needs to go to the police does—some documents already have, and there may be others as more is investigated—and that others can be made public. So there is a role, but it is being overseen by an independent King’s Counsel. So there is a legal element to that to make sure that there is no possibility of information being withheld that should be in the public domain or referred to the ISC because it is a matter of national security.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will now have the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said about looking at whether the Code of Conduct needs to be strengthened. But would she agree with me that in this House we do have rules of behaviour, an independent investigative process, and sanctions available when those rules are broken? Would she further agree that the Code of Conduct binds every Member of this House—that binding is symbolised at the beginning of each Parliament by the signing of the Code of Conduct, but it applies all the time—and that it is very wide-ranging about behaviour and encompasses the seven principles of behaviour in public life, which cover a great many of the sorts of issues we are discussing today?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. As a self-regulating House, we have a Code of Conduct and there are rules of behaviour, an independent process and sanctions. Is it adequate? Does it meet the test that it needs to meet? Does it do the job we want it to do? Does it give confidence in this House to the public? Those are the questions we want to look at. At the moment, it is very difficult for a Member to be removed from this House and there are no powers to remove someone’s title. I can think of only one occasion when a Member of this House has been expelled from it, but I can think of a number where somebody has resigned to avoid being properly investigated or expelled. We may want to look at whether we are confident and satisfied that it meets the test that the public expect of us.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

The noble Baroness the Leader will recall that, when she was shadow Leader of this House, the Privileges and Conduct Committee spent several meetings considering a disrepute clause similar to the one proposed by the Prime Minister. Has she advised the Prime Minister that we might have had such a clause in place 10 years ago had she and the other Labour members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee not failed to support such a clause and voted against it at that time?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right up to a point. It was not just on that occasion, when she made proposals, but on several other occasions since. Her proposals, as I recall, went further than most people would go, because they went into private lives. She shakes her head at me, but that was the main issue of dispute at the time. We have looked at it again since; there were times when the Conservative Benches have not supported such a proposal. It is important to look at disrepute not just in somebody’s parliamentary work, but in their public life. For example, in the last few years, when I was Leader of the Opposition, I raised an issue with the then Lord Speaker where somebody in their public life as a Member of this House behaved in a way that many in the House at the time found completely appalling and reprehensible. We need to look at disrepute, but I do not think this is a matter for private lives. Others may feel differently. How we conduct ourselves not just in our work here but in public as a Member of this House is important. I would like the Conduct Committee to look at that.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I very much welcome the openness of the answers that my noble friend has been giving to what are very serious, important questions. I want to raise an issue that has not been raised. I happen to be very keen to avoid having an elected president in this country, and therefore to preserve the monarchy. Mandelson was not the only person affected by the disclosure of these papers. What action is being taken in respect of the damage to the Royal Family in the disclosure of these papers?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been mentioned. One of the most disturbing things is this network of powerful people who seemed to think that they were above the law so it would not apply to them or they would not be found out. It is hard to know what is in somebody’s mind when they behave in this way. The noble Lord will be aware that he has been stripped of his titles and is moving out of royal accommodation to alternative private accommodation. His Majesty has been very firm on this and we support the way he has dealt with it. There are issues around the use of the Royal Lodge that are being looked at by the National Audit Office and work is being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee.

Nobody can be above the law. Lord Mandelson has resigned from this House, the King has agreed with the Prime Minister that he should not be a privy counsellor and we are looking at legislating so that people in this position should not keep titles. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lost his title and his privileges. This shows people that no one is above the law. That is important. The voices of the victims of powerful men and sometimes women were not heard when they should have been, and I hope that these actions go some way to ensuring that, in future, more notice will be taken of those who want to bring forward complaints.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

The Leader of the House referred earlier to powerful individuals. We have to say it as it is. It was predominantly powerful men abusing not only women but children. We have to be very careful about language. I want to follow up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised around the sharing of sensitive information by Lord Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly around Poland and Russia. Have the Government assessed whether any further information was shared with other states and intelligence agencies? If so, will they disclose it? If that assessment has not been made, will they commit to carrying out that assessment as soon as possible to see whether other sensitive information was shared with other Governments across the world, friend or foe?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. His point about powerful individuals cannot be made often enough, and the impact this has had on the lives of very young people that will stay with them forever. On the sharing of sensitive information, he is right. This is a betrayal, not just of those whom Lord Mandelson was working with but a national betrayal. We do not know what damage could have been done, but certainly damage can be done when such information is shared. It is probably too early at this stage, with so many documents to go through and so many sources to try to retrieve documents from, to say exactly everything that is in there, but the Government are committed to transparency on this. We all need to know exactly what has happened. The documents in the public domain make unedifying reading. For those who were working in those areas at the time, to know that the conversations they had, the documents they signed and the decisions they took in the public interest were being relayed to somebody outside the very small number of people who should have known about them is a gross betrayal.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, it is now a matter of public record that, in February 2025, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to the Cabinet Secretary asking for an investigation into

“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”.

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?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those are important questions. I do not have the answers for the noble Baroness. I have seen the press reports that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom I worked very closely with, has asked for the information. I do not know what trawl was done. 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.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation of what has been going on. I want to raise again the Cabinet Secretary’s role. About five years ago, I had reason to complain to the Cabinet Secretary about what I thought was a Minister in the Commons misleading Parliament, so I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to ask if he could investigate. The answer was: “No, I would have to get the Prime Minister’s approval first”. I said: “There is not much point, because I know what the Prime Minister will answer”. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a KC involved in the future work, but we have to be very careful about the relationship between the Cabinet Secretary and the then Prime Minister.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I do not know if he heard the answer I gave earlier, but it is now the case that it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to authorise an investigation into whether a Minister has broken the Ministerial Code. That is a matter for the holder of the Ministerial Code. So, on that point he would not have had that answer; today he would have a different answer and it would not be from the Prime Minister.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

This morning, the Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, has written to the Health Secretary expressing concern about the Palantir contract in the NHS. The papers have exposed the close relationship between Peter Mandelson and Palantir, and this disreputable company has caused a great deal of concern. I am not expecting the Minister to be briefed on the break clause that I believe occurs in that contract later this year, but my question is broader. The Government have had a very close relationship with US tech billionaires and their companies in the promotion of AI and the granting of contracts. Are the Government going to reassess, in the light of these papers, their relationship overall with US tech billionaires and their companies, and their close ties to the British Government?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If there is anything in the papers that warrants further investigation in other areas then the Government will obviously look at that. The noble Baroness has asked me to give her assurance that, because we know X has happened, we will therefore investigate every tech company. I cannot give her that assurance. However, if there is anything in these papers at all to indicate that further investigation to get to the truth is needed, that will be taken.

China and Japan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches believe the Government should engage internationally, and the Prime Minister likewise, to operate with allies and competitors alike. But when it comes to competitors who have been proven to also be adversaries and security risks, that engagement, if transactional, must actively de-risk.

On the Chinese risk to our economy and Parliament, and of industrial espionage, the relationship did not start when this Government took office. Indeed, part of the task should now be to try to remove some of China’s enhanced ability to operate that was in place under the previous Government. If the Government are playing a hand of cards badly now, the entire pack had been given previously to Beijing. We had the biggest trade deficit with China of any country in the history of our trade, peaking under Liz Truss at a trade deficit of over £50 billion. That meant our trading relationship was so out of balance that our ability to lever in any transactions was greatly reduced. I understand if the Government are seeking to reset the relationship, perhaps without going back to the “golden era” that George Osborne heralded in 2015, but a realistic one should ensure that we de-risk our relationship with China. Part of that would be ensuring that those who live in this country are not threatened by another country and do not have bounties placed on them. Did the Prime Minister state to President Xi that putting a bounty on anyone in this country is both utterly unacceptable and should be criminalised? Did we get an assurance that they will be lifted and never put in place again? Diplomacy is good; however, actions on this are necessary.

As we heard, we have been warned by MI5 of commercial espionage by China on an industrial scale. One of the key areas is our education sector, so can the Leader of the House be clear that we are confident of our intellectual property rights in any new relationship with China going forward? I read with a degree of concern that we are starting the process of a service trade agreement feasibility study. I asked the Minister for Development about this, highlighting that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were as one before the last general election in seeking human rights clauses in trading agreements. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, if we are to have any service trade agreement with China, there will be human rights clauses within it and clear intellectual property protections?

On the embassy, there have been reports that the Prime Minister’s visit was not confirmed unless and until the embassy was approved. Ministers have said that only material planning issues were considered. Can the Leader of the House be clear and deny that there was any diplomatic communication with Beijing about the embassy?

If there is one element we have seen recently in Beijing’s purge of the military, it is the more belligerent tone on the regional areas of concern. It was a great pleasure this afternoon to meet with one of our Taiwanese sister party’s MPs to discuss the enhanced concern in Taiwan about that belligerent tone. The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons that he had raised the issue of Taiwan. Can the Leader of the House outline a little more what we raised? This is an opportunity to enhance our trading relationship not only with Beijing but with Taiwan, as being a friend of Taiwan does not mean being an enemy of China. When it comes to the key sectors of semi-conductors, technology and educational research, Taiwan is a trusted partner with strong institutions, the rule of law and human rights—and it is a democracy. Therefore, our relationship should be enhanced, but not at the cost of the relationship with China. Did President Xi seek to put pressure on the UK to diminish our relationship with Taiwan? That would be a very retrograde step.

On Japan, the situation is very positive. Our relationship is strong and can be enhanced, and I welcome the Government’s moves to do so. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Global Combat Air Programme; more information on timing and costs would be most helpful. Will the defence investment plan reflect the Tempest programme and the practical arrangements?

Finally, on whisky, for which both the noble Lord and I have a fondness, I agree that the situation is positive. Any deal that enhances the Scotch whisky industry is a good one. I remind noble Lords that, while it is beneficial that Beijing tariffs will be reduced, our most profitable and valuable malt whisky market in the world is Taiwan, and that should be a lesson for us.

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

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. Those from the noble Lord, Lord True, clearly underline the fundamental difference between the party opposite and us. Let us just start from where we are. The fundamental difference is that the party opposite went from a golden age of engagement to an ice age of engagement. Noble Lords referred to resetting the relationship with China. I do not think it is a reset; it is establishing a relationship that has been absent for the last eight years. I have to say to the noble Lord opposite that if the only countries he wants the Prime Minister to engage with are those with which we are in 100% agreement on every issue, it does this country a great disservice. Only through engagement with countries with which we have differences will we make progress, for the benefit of this country, on the kinds of issues the noble Lords have spoken about.

It is a choice we make. For eight years, the party opposite made the choice not to engage or have prime ministerial visits. We have made a different choice, in the national interest. That does not in any sense mean that we are not going to raise, and did not raise, important issues of concern regarding security, human rights and individuals. The only way you resolve those issues is by dialogue. You are not going to make all the progress needed or resolve all the issues the first time you establish dialogue, but if you do not make that start, nothing is going to happen. I do not much see evidence of the last eight years of disengagement working for the benefit of this country. If we look at other countries, this country has stood back in the last eight years. President Macron visited China three times, and the German leader visited four times, and the USA and Canada have plans in place. Engagement is possible and provides a new opportunity to develop a new, different kind of relationship, as the noble Lord alluded to.

Both noble Lords raised the issue of the embassy. I do not think I need to remind this House that decisions on planning issues are quasi-judicial and taken in that context. It is not a matter for the Prime Minister; it is a matter for the Secretary of State.

The decision must be taken on planning grounds, but issues of national security can be taken into account. It might assist the House if I read a short comment from a longer letter from GCHQ and the security services. I remind noble Lords that there have been Chinese embassies in this country since, I believe, 1788. Those embassies are currently across seven different sites across the UK. In terms of the benefits we get, the letter I have to the Secretaries of State from the security services and from GCHQ says that the consolidation should bring “clear security advantages”. That is important to note.

Also, when the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament looked at that, where issues of process were raised, it concluded that

“the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated”.

That shows how seriously the Government take this issue. That does not mean we are not alive to other security issues, but the advice from GCHQ and MI5, and from the Intelligence and Security Committee, is something we should take note of.

The noble Lord, Lord True, raised the issue of sanctions and the righting of a terrible wrong. Yes, he is right and it is important that China has done so. It is absolutely appalling that any sanctions should remain on parliamentarians at all. There are still further discussions on how much further we can take that but, in terms of making progress, it is an important first step to have made.

The noble Lords asked about a range of issues. As I was not in the room, I cannot give a complete readout of who said what and what the response was. What I think is the most important thing, however, is how these issues were raised. The issue of the Uyghurs and the issue in Hong Kong and of Hong Kong residents in this country are issues we cannot accept in any way at all. It is a terrible situation. It is something the Prime Minister felt very strongly about and, along with the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, it was on the Prime Minister’s agenda and was raised and discussed.

On Jimmy Lai, it is worth saying that what his family must be going through and what he must be going through is completely and totally unacceptable. He is a British citizen, he is in poor health and he should be at home with his family. We will continue to raise this. It is sad that lack of engagement, saying, “We do not agree with you”, has not made any progress. The only way we can make progress is by having that engagement. But there can be no doubt at all about the strength of feeling from the Prime Minister and others on this issue.

I am running out of time, so I will quickly try to address the many other questions in a couple of minutes. Yes, we remain fully committed to GCAP; yes, the issues of British Steel are at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind; and yes, of course, it is important for the whisky industry. Perhaps I can just make a plea for Northern Ireland whiskey as well; I am not a whiskey drinker, but I understand that Bushmills would be my favourite if I were. My Northern Ireland colleagues may not be here, but I see there is a Bushmills drinker here.

Taking this forward, security is very important. We have been unequivocal in our support for Taiwan. On Ukraine, the Prime Minister spoke to President Zelensky before he went to China—before he raised Ukraine with President Xi. He spoke to President Zelensky afterwards as well. We are being very clear about our support for Ukraine. We do not in any way condone, support or even accept China’s support for Russia on this. It is quite clear the Prime Minister made that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent initiative. Is not the constant criticism by some of China, in the mistaken belief that isolation and shouting abuse are somehow going to positively influence events, both reckless and counter- productive? It will be ignored by China, of course. Is not the way forward to dilute conflict by promoting harmony and co-operation in every area of human endeavour: sport, finance, culture, educational exchange and human rights? And, most important, should we not be getting in close to deal with problems arising from dollar devaluation and the inevitable emphasis China will now place on exports to Europe?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of issues, but the bottom line is that he asks whether engagement is better than stepping away and shouting. That is the fundamental difference between us and the party opposite. The kinds of issues he raises about investment, business and trade are important, but it is also important that we challenge. So, co-operation and engagement are key, as are cultural exchanges, which were quite a big part of the delegation. Sixty businesses and organisations travelled with the Prime Minister, many of them representing cultural organisations. That is really important and helps the understanding between peoples, not just between Governments. But we also have to challenge where we have differences, and that will continue alongside engagement.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, given the profound uncertainty surrounding the UK’s treaty with Mauritius in respect of the Chagos Islands, can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that further consideration of this Bill will not resume until the necessary amendments to the 1966 treaty—UN treaty 8737—between the UK and the United States have been made?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I must say to the noble Lord that I am responsible for many things, but the timing of our debates is a matter not for me but for the Chief Whip, who might not appreciate me saying what the timing could be. I will say to the noble Earl that we are in discussion with the Americans, as we have been throughout on this, but I have never, in all my time in this House, known a party table a Motion at ping-pong to delay ping-pong. That I think is unprecedented. On the substance of his point, yes, we are engaged with the Americans and we look forward to bringing the Motion forward in due course.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan, following his visit to China and emphasise how important it is that we visit, link up with, negotiate with and do deals with our best friends, as well as those who are more challenging. In particular, can I ask whether the Prime Minister, during his visit to Japan, discussed with the Prime Minister of Japan the refreshing of the Hiroshima Accord that was established by Prime Minister Sunak and which has forged a new partnership between this country and Japan that is leading to significant investment, very good co-operation on science and technology and strengthening defence globally?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his interest and his role in this. Japan has been a valued partner and it has been a very deep relationship, for instance with £33 billion in annual trade and 150,000 jobs created. Japan is our closest security partner in Asia. On the noble Lord’s particular point about the Hiroshima Accord, I will look into that and come back to him. On a number of issues where we are in agreement, I would highlight the support Japan has given to Ukraine. Japan has been the fifth-largest provider of non-military assistance and it has been a key member of the coalition of the willing. I think that shows the strength. I would also say that most of us regard the Japanese ambassador, Ambassador Suzuki, with a great deal of affection. He has really taken the UK to his heart and the UK has taken him to our hearts.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, following the issue of sanctions, in my case it is one down and three to go. I welcome the intervention that the Prime Minister made on behalf of those parliamentarians who have been sanctioned—not by China but by the Chinese Communist Party. Many of us are careful to make that distinction. Jo Smith Finley, the Uyghur scholar based at Newcastle University, is still sanctioned; Sir Geoffrey Nice, KC, one of our most celebrated human rights lawyers, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, is still sanctioned. Tim Loughton, former Member of the House of Commons, is still sanctioned. We have had nothing in writing about the sanctions on our own families, as well. I do hope that we can expedite that as soon as possible.

I want to drill down deeper on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis, on dependence and resilience. With a trade deficit of more than £40 billion, should we not do all we possibly can to remove our dependency on the People’s Republic of China? That is not to say that we should disengage, but making ourselves dependent in crucial sectors surely cannot be right. Following what I heard yesterday at a round table I chaired here in Parliament for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, what have we done to ensure that goods that have been made by slave labour in Xinjiang are removed from our supply chains, not least solar panels and many of the things we buy into the National Health Service?

I will also ask about transnational repression; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised this point. Many of us have met Chloe Cheung, a brave young woman, just in her 20s, who has a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on her head. Carmen Lau, who was a Hong Kong district councillor, has a similar bounty on her head, and a further 10 residents in the UK have those kinds of bounties. That cannot be right. Did we raise that question with President Xi? What progress can we make on that?

On 26 February, this House will debate the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. Will we be able to answer the question about the foreign influence registration scheme and our failure to put the People’s Republic of China into it, even though we have put Russia and Iran into it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right: in every circumstance, sanctions are wrong. I am myself sanctioned —not by the Chinese Communist Party but by Russia—as are a number of Members of this House.

The noble Lord raised Hong Kong as well. The Prime Minister was candid and robust in raising these issues. We will get clarity for the noble Lord—discussions are ongoing—but the principle has been established, and we want to take that on as we can.

The noble Lord asked about supply chains, and about dependence and resilience. We do not rely on one country. The trade deals that this country has done are significant; look at the work we are doing with the EU, and our trade deals with India and the USA. All those play a part, and the noble Lord is right to raise that issue. I hope that we can get back to him fairly soon with further clarity, but he is absolutely right. All those issues were raised, and we are not prepared to accept sanctions on British citizens.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that the candid robustness of the Prime Minister on Hong Kong included giving the very firm message to Beijing that no return visit by President Xi could be considered while Jimmy Lai is still imprisoned in Hong Kong and—heaven forfend—if he were to die in prison?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that Jimmy Lai does not die in prison. No one wants to see that, and I am surprised that the noble Baroness raised it in those terms. We want to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. She asked about a visit. The only visit that I am aware of where the Chinese President could come to the UK is the G20 visit. We do not say, “Unless you do this”; it is not conditional. We are trying everything we can to ensure Jimmy Lai’s release.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for addressing this important Statement. I draw you Lordships’ House’s attention to my entries in the register of interests, particularly my role as vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Ministers routinely refuse to answer questions in Parliament about nuclear weapons, often citing the phrase “for obvious reasons”. On Monday in the Commons, my honourable friend John Grady MP asked whether the Prime Minister had had discussions with President Xi about nuclear weapons. In response, the Prime Minister informed the other place that he had discussed with President Xi how to

“derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/26; col. 36.]

In 2022, the United Kingdom, under a Conservative Government, together with the other P5 members, affirmed its intention

“to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorised or unintended use of nuclear weapons”.

The same Government reaffirmed that in 2024 with no qualifications. Can my noble friend build on this hugely welcome precedent of transparency and persuade the Government to make time for a debate on this issue in Parliament? Given my impending retirement, this request is wholly altruistic, as I will not be able to participate, but I believe that it would be a welcome step forward for parliamentary accountability.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend— I use that word in every sense, since he and I were Ministers together in Northern Ireland—asked me for a debate. When he announced his retirement from this House, I think he heard the response from many noble Lords, which illustrated how much he will be missed here; I will certainly miss him on a personal level too. The Prime Minister also paid tribute to my noble friend when he answered that question in the House of Commons, which does not happen for many of us.

The Prime Minister did indeed answer that question, but I think I can go a bit further on the substance of the point. It is quite clear that the Government will increase their efforts to work with China on halting nuclear proliferation, maintaining strategic stability, and advancing progress on conflict prevention, resolution and peacekeeping, in line with the UN charter and the responsibilities for permanent members. Given my noble friend’s work with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, this House would be poorer in having a debate without him present. I will not try to take on the Chief Whip’s role in suggesting a debate; it is something that the House debates from time to time, but I will pass on my noble friend’s comments. I end by saying that he will be greatly missed by this House.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one British citizen is being held by the Chinese in solitary confinement, as other noble Lords have mentioned. There is something I genuinely cannot understand: as the visit was being arranged, and as we were giving permission for a huge Chinese embassy, why was this one British citizen not made an absolutely key issue before the Prime Minister was even prepared to go to China?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a key issue. It is important that the Prime Minister, for the first time since Jimmy Lai has been in prison, was able to raise this issue face to face with the Chinese—that has not happened before. I do not think that any of us will be satisfied until Jimmy Lai is released; that is the only point at which we will be satisfied with all the engagement that is taking place. I give the noble Baroness a categorical assurance that this issue is being raised at every opportunity and that we will continue to raise it until he is released.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan and China. As the Leader of the Opposition said, such visits are a vital part of the work of every Prime Minister. The Statement on China refers to a dedicated dialogue on cyber security. Can my noble friend tell the House any more about what that might involve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I cannot give details, but discussions are taking place. I think we all understand the threats of cyber security, and why we have to minimise them and not accept them from any part of the world against anyone in the UK or any UK institution. Those discussions are ongoing, and it is important that we have them. The present situation is not what we wish to see. That is why it was so important that, when the embassy got planning permission, we included the security implications in the decision-making process. My noble friend is more of an expert on cyber issues than I am, but I assure him that discussions are ongoing and will continue.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House respects both the Leader of the House and her noble friend the Foreign Office Minister, who is sitting alongside her. As I said the other day to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the problem that we face in this House —those of us who are not Foreign Office Ministers—is that when Ministers in this House use expressions such as “challenge” or “robustly raise”, it sadly does not mean very much. They are delightful generalisations, and they breed a form of suspicion that all that is happening is that a formula is being adhered to.

Is the Leader of the House able to be a little more forthcoming? The noble Baroness the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was not in the room when the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office, so she was unable to tell me what exchanges took place, albeit she may later have had some form of readout. We need a little more detail. Nobody is suggesting that the Government are not being candid with us but perhaps they can be a little more open in the secrecy of this Chamber and let us know precisely what “challenge” and “raising robustly” mean. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord True said, there are grounds for concern that “robust” and “challenge” have a different meaning in the Government from on the street?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Given that we have had an aircraft carrier in the area, I think that is fairly robust. I will get the precise details for the noble and learned Lord. He has been a Minister himself, and he is being a little cheeky. On the secrecy of the House of Lords, there are thousands watching our proceedings. Hansard is published.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Millions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord says millions. He may be more optimistic than I am, but we are hardly meeting in secret. The art of diplomacy is an ongoing process, not a moment. The House understands that. The noble and learned Lord has to accept that when the Prime Minister raises issues that have not been raised for a long time, he will do so to ensure that his voice and that of this country are heard. I do not recognise the noble and learned Lord’s characterisation. Most of us can understand the diplomatic language, perhaps, of “raising” and being “robust” on issues. No one can say that we have not been robust on Ukraine, the Uyghurs and Taiwan. The Prime Minister has not changed his view in any way. He has been quite clear on that. I am unable to give the noble and learned Lord the minutes of the meeting but I can give him the assurance that the Prime Minister raises issues in the way in which the House would expect him to.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

There has been a report of a warm relationship between Mauritius and China. Was there any discussion with the Chinese about the Chagos treaty during the Prime Minister’s visit?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not aware of any discussion specifically on the treaty. On the issue of wider security in the region, certainly in China and Japan, that was an important part of the Prime Minister’s visit because the security of that region is important to us. But I could not say absolutely that Chagos was part of the discussions.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, can I press the Leader of House on an issue that my noble friend Lord Purvis raised around human rights in particular, regarding any future potential trade arrangements and ensuring that human rights chapters are included in them? I am concerned that if we do not do so, we will be on a slippery slope every time we negotiate with any nation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Yes, it is an important part of trade deals that we have the highest standards possible, and human rights are often part of discussions that take place. If one looks at the trade deals that have been done already, one can see that those discussions have taken place and, in many cases, borne fruit.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness said earlier that steel was at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind. We understand that the steel strategy, which is long awaited, is with No. 10 and the Prime Minister at the moment. Can she enlighten us a little more as to when we can expect to see that published? If she cannot do so, will she at least ask the question and come back to us?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord will understand the commitment this Government have to the steel industry in this country. I remember just under a year ago being away on holiday, receiving numerous phone calls and coming back straight to this House on a Saturday to save the steel industry in this country. He may need to be a little bit more patient with the steel strategy but he I think will welcome it in the interests of British Steel when it arrives.

Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, many of us aspire to be a good politician, to do good and to be a good person. More times than not, we fall short. Jim Wallace was a good man who saw it as his role in life to do good things. He did, and they will last. With great sorrow, we have been denied the opportunity of hearing a valedictory speech in this House from Jim. He would have been characteristically modest. We can perhaps be a little immodest on his behalf for a now profoundly missed absent friend.

After his early political days in the lowlands of Scotland, he triumphed in its most northerly part. When he was elected, many said he was the MP for Jo Grimond’s seat, but in short order we referred to it as Jim Wallace’s Orkney and Shetland. As MP, MSP and Peer, he saw serving in Parliament as the means by which good things can be done, not the end in itself. He was what a parliamentarian should be.

When speaking in Parliament Hall on the day of the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Jim was achieving his ambition and the dreams of many in delivering what Gladstone could not a century before. He said to all those newly elected MSPs:

“As the people’s representatives we should never forget the hopes kindled by this historic opportunity”.


He approached his role to meet those hopes as the first Liberal in office since the Second World War with zeal: land reform, law reform, social reform, education reform, prison reform—radical but workable—and all have endured, none reversed. Jim was a reformer, but he knew that for reform to last, it had to be done well. He said of the new Holyrood:

“Our Parliament must be open and inclusive—willing to consult and willing to listen”.


That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.

Jim could be exceptionally partisan, though, but only with football. A determined Blue Nose—supporter of Glasgow Rangers—he was dutifully, but distractedly, carrying out one of his last duties as Deputy First Minister before being succeeded by my noble friend Lord Stephen in May 2005 at the launch of the Promoting Unst Renewable Energy project, on a day ironically too windy for anything to work. He was distracted, as it was unknown to him who was winning the Scottish league. But as his then private secretary subtly gave the thumbs up during the non-switching-on event, Jim then became, in the words of his private secretary, “the happiest I’ve ever seen him”.

Jim was a very confident Liberal, but very comfortable with others who were not. He felt that co-operating with others did not diminish his position or dilute his beliefs. Rather, it allowed progress to be made for the better end. Agreement with others, for Jim, was to get traction and longevity. We all knew that reaching agreement was Jim’s strength, but he approached it always from a granite set of principles. I once discussed a tricky time in the Scottish Parliament on a controversial law reform measure, and he said to me, “The test is when you defend the human rights of the people you hate”. Although that word was never associated with Jim, his words have become my test.

When he gave the first Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture, he mourned the loss of a great friend prematurely. In the lecture, he remarked on their close friendship that

“there was much camaraderie, much political discussion and analysis, even intrigue—and much fun”.

The same for us with you, Jim.

Jim was literally admirable, with a political determination tempered by real kindness, and a seriousness of purpose sweetened by wry humour. Jim would tell of his period as Justice Minister in 2002, when Nelson Mandela visited the Lockerbie bomber in jail and, at a global press conference, criticised the way he was being kept, and by extension Jim himself. On hearing the rather worrying condemnation of Jim by the world’s most venerated man, his teenage daughter said, “Did Nelson Mandela just attack Dad? That’s cool!”

Engaging in a policy discussion with Jim was a thrilling and quite often intimidating experience. He had a prodigious intellect, phenomenal memory, confidence of argument and the ability to deploy cutting wit, like a sharpened sgian dubh. You needed to be on your game or your game was lost, as I learned on too many an occasion. I would start off fully confident with my argument and not long after accepting an early defeat, I would just pour us lots more whisky, enjoy the man and admire his abilities so comfortably worn. Those in law, civil service and politics would see the same. He excelled in company, while never dominating it. For those of us who knew him well, his ability to doze off mid-discussion, awaken and display his remarkable acuity as before was a skill to behold.

Jim loved serving as Moderator and said that he was more in awe in addressing the Kirk’s General Assembly than any of the three parliamentary Chambers he had mastered. On taking office as Moderator, he said:

“At all levels, and not least in our upper echelons, we should be ready to take risks to do what is right”.


For Jim, the risk would be calculated, prepared for, researched and tested, but that preparation did not dent the determination for boldness of thought and action. He led my Scottish party; he led government, he led the Kirk and in law. He also led these Benches, not by diktat—Jim knew this to be a futile exercise for a group of Liberals—but through intellect, argument, respect and a reasoned, methodical approach. We were lucky to have a colleague we admired, but one who made it easy to love him too.

John Buchan wrote of another great Scot words which are also appropriate for Jim:

“perfectly honest, perfectly fearless, and perfectly true”.

I grieve for Rosie, Clare and Helen and the grandchildren, who will have so many years ahead without Jim, but I say with love that we are ever so grateful that you allowed us to share Jim in our lives. Jim was a good politician and a good person who strove for and did good. The country is better, and lives are improved as a result of what he did. He was the best of examples of how politics can and should be the most honourable of callings. His faith was deep and he knew that, when his time had come, he would be going to a good place. That time is the wrong time—far too soon a time—but that place is now extremely lucky to have him.

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

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very powerful, heartfelt tribute. In his words, we all pictured the man that we grew to admire in this House. Paying tribute to friends and colleagues who have passed is never easy. When their passing is so sudden, unexpected and before their time, our sense of loss is profound. We had no idea that, when Jim spoke in the House last December, it would be the last time we heard him here. Lord Wallace was widely respected and held in great affection, and his loss is acutely felt.

Early last year, he spoke on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. As a long-standing elder and a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he played an active, helpful role in the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill. One was a controversial Bill, and the other had the support of the entire House; yet his approach and tone were exactly the same in each—thoughtful, level-headed and wise. Indeed, in that great way Jim had with words, he ended his contributions on the Church of Scotland Bill with a reference to the historic stain that the Bill removed, allowing Roman Catholics to hold the office of High Commissioner. He was looking forward to playing an active role as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where his legal background and sound judgment would have been a real asset.

A true believer in devolution, as we have heard, he was always willing to work across party boundaries and engage more widely to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, spoke with admiration of how they worked together to meet the challenge of bringing the Scottish Constitutional Convention to a consensus—no easy feat. The disparate nature of the various parties, churches and civil society meant that this was not going to be easy, and Jim’s acute political and legal skills, alongside his gentle, engaging manner, made for a formidable combination. They succeeded because they were of one mind, and I am told that they even decided the size of the Scottish Parliament over the late Lord Campbell of Pittenweem’s dinner table.

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for that.

It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of these Benches, to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith for his great service to this House as the fourth elected Lord Speaker. Yes, he is a noble friend, but he has also been a personal friend to many of us for many years.

I first met John—my noble friend Lord McFall—in 1986; we were both first-time parliamentary candidates, although he was more successful than me in the general election of the following year, going on to represent Dumbarton in the other place of the next 33 years. A long-serving Labour parliamentarian, my noble friend truly respected the independence of the Lord Speaker’s role during his time in post, as he did in his previous role as Senior Deputy Speaker. Although holding high office, he carried the honour lightly—never pompous or overbearing, with no affected airs and graces, always unfailingly courteous to all. He earned our respect and affection through his commitment and dedication to the role.

Although my noble friend left school at 15 without qualifications, he turned to education after working in the council’s parks department and in a factory, and gained a BSc in chemistry, and then a BA in education philosophy. As a teacher, and later a deputy head, he gained an MBA from the University of Strathclyde, where he later became a visiting professor. He was clearly a role model as a teacher. Imagine his surprise and delight when, just last week, a former pupil took his seat in this House as my noble friend Lord Docherty of Milngavie.

As John and I were talking last week, he told me about a regular visit he makes to a local convent, first as an MP and now as a Member of your Lordships’ House. One of the older nuns remembers him as “the wee laddie from the council who was sent to catch the rats”. Little did any of them think that, decades later, he would find himself championing the refurbishment of an iconic national building so full of rats—the ones in the basement, obviously.

In all the years I have known John, I have never known him to be anything other than energetic, enthusiastic, and dedicated about his work in Parliament—perfect qualifications for Lord Speaker. I saw this at first hand when I first worked closely with him after he drew a high place in the 1995 Private Member’s Bill ballot. He took on a controversial Bill that was going to face a tough time in the House of Lords; that might sound familiar. Never one to shy away from a challenge, he chose to introduce the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which would have outlawed fox hunting, hare coursing and deer hunting. Although not ultimately successful, it paved the way for later legislation.

For me, however, it was always my noble friend’s attention to detail and his ability to engage with and listen to different points of view and approaches while holding to his values that made him so impressive—another perfect qualification for Lord Speaker. He did not seek the office himself: he was encouraged to step forward to take on the role of Senior Deputy Speaker by my noble friend Lord Touhig. After five years, he still had that same enthusiasm to put himself forward as Lord Speaker. Beyond chairing our proceedings, the role of the Lord Speaker is, of course, multifaceted, involving engagement with a wide range of audiences, internal and external. Our noble friend has been notably proactive and innovative on this front, from setting up regular engagement with colleagues on accessibility issues and potential uses of AI to recording messages and podcasts, communicating the work of our Select Committees and taking on a new role of scrutinising the Restoration and Renewal Client Board.

As an ambassador for your Lordships’ House, our noble friend has built on the work of his predecessor with the same drive and commitment. His schools outreach work with teachers and students via the Learn with the Lords initiative has been outstanding. When speaking on the vital role of this House in our democracy, he has been a consistent and positive advocate for the benefits of our work, while promoting ongoing reform. He spoke to the Hansard Society in December 2022, and said:

“We need to work proactively to change the Lords so that we can continue to do what we do well, but do it while better reflecting society and all parts of the country”.


During his first year in post, our noble friend became the first Lord Speaker to visit all the UK’s devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, and he launched the Interparliamentary Forum to consider issues of devolution and joint working. On the international stage, he has co-hosted, with Mr Speaker, multiple state visits to Parliament. He gave a wonderful speech of thanks in Westminster Hall to President Zelensky on behalf of us all.

Whenever our noble friend has been called upon to represent this House at parliamentary events, we have enjoyed, and taken pride in, his engaging, often witty and respectful speeches on behalf of this House. During visits to various European parliaments, he became the first Lord Speaker to attend the German Bundestag and the first to address the Irish Seanad. The period between autumn 2022 and spring 2023 saw great upheaval in our country, with the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. Throughout that time, our noble friend played a vital role in Parliament and major events of national significance.

As I said at the outset, I have known John for nearly 40 years. His genuine interest in people and his inquiring mind ensure that he is good and engaging company. I have valued his friendship and wise counsel. He described being Lord Speaker as the honour of his life, yet his loyalty to and love for his wife and family was his first priority in his Statement to your Lordships’ House last October when he announced the reasons for his departure and his commitment to support his wife Joan with the care she needed. In doing so, my noble friend spoke of the selfless support that she had given him throughout his professional and political life—a true partnership. It really is a pleasure to have begun these tributes today. Although he is unable to be with us today, he will be keeping up to date with our work, keeping an eye on us and wishing us well. Thank you, John.

It also gives me great pleasure today to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who I have spent many years engaging—and, from time to time, sparring—with, both in this Chamber and beyond. It was the late Tony Banks, Lord Stratford, who, on becoming a Government Minister after years of mischievous enjoyment on the Back Benches, admitted:

“There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman”.


The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has his own transition to make. I think it is fair to say that many a Minister on this side of the House and the other side has learned to fear his forensic and sometimes withering questions—we particularly welcome him to his new role. Those who have worked for him in committees know that he is inclusive and dedicated. Many noble Lords, especially on my own Benches, may be surprised to know that we agree a bit more often than we disagree. When it comes to the work of your Lordships’ House and the commitment to high standards, we stand together. He has the support of the whole House. I am in no doubt that he will be an excellent Lord Speaker, and I welcome him to the role.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, in welcoming the new Lord Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for his time as Lord Speaker. As the House knows, my noble friend Lord True cannot be here to pay tribute, but I am sure that our sentiments are the same: that the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has been a wonderful Lord Speaker. As the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said, he has presided over countless state visits and he has engaged in extensive outreach in schools. I particularly remember, as the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal does, his address after President Zelensky. It was such a powerful moment in this Parliament and we were all privileged to hear it. He has probably travelled around half the world in his capacity as Lord Speaker and he was of course central to the funeral of Her late Majesty and the Coronation of King Charles III. Many noble Lords will have enjoyed his podcasts and his Lord Speaker’s Lectures.

On a personal level, I thank the noble Lord very much for being such an accessible, warm and kind individual. He has been, as the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal alluded to, a humble servant to Parliament. I wish him and his wife some enjoyable downtime together. I am sure that he will have been using his time with our new Lord Speaker, travelling to and from Scotland, to train him on how the job is done. Thank you, John.

Now, on to the new Lord Speaker: I think he looks the part already, but he may find it quite difficult not to opine on a variety of matters. For that, as the Leader of the House says, the Government should be very glad.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 27 January to enable Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill to begin before oral questions that day.

Motion agreed.

Election of Lord Speaker

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being elected our Lord Speaker. I look forward to working closely with him in his new role when he takes up the post next month. I know he will represent the House rigorously and will act robustly—as he is known to—in the role for Members across your Lordships’ House. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Hers was a dedicated campaign and candidacy. Both candidates were an absolute credit to your Lordships’ House and I thank them. The campaign process was courteous and dignified, showing that, despite being the unelected House, we can run a good election. I also extend thanks to all the House staff involved in the election, particularly those in the Journal Office, the Hansard Society and the digital team for supporting all Members to take part and making sure that a right and proper procedure was followed.

As usual, time will be made available for the House to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall when he leaves the Woolsack, and I have promised him, under pain of retaliation, that we will not be paying tribute to him today and pre-empting the tributes we will pay later, but I know that the whole House will want to thank him for what has been really sterling service to the House for so many years. Thank you.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely endorse everything the Leader of the House has said on our behalf. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth—and he is my friend. However, I remember that, when I first became a Minister in your Lordships’ House, it fell to my noble friend to ask the first Question. I was very pleased and went up to him and said, “I’m glad it’s you asking a Question” and he said, “Yes, yes, good”. And, my Lords, he asked me a right bastard of a Question! I am sorry: that may not be parliamentary language. He asked me a really difficult Question. I said to him afterwards, “So what’s going on?” He gave me that seraphic smile and said, “Well, you did very well”.

I only tell that story to show that I know my noble friend, as the Leader of the House said, is rigorous in his scrutiny. He was as rigorous in his scrutiny of us on our side when we were in Government as he is here. He is a great parliamentarian and will be a wonderful servant of your Lordships’ House in his new role, I have no doubt.

Like the Leader, I would like to pay a most sincere tribute to—if I may say—my noble friend Lady Bull, who conducted herself with her habitual decorum and charm. I hope she will take from this election a sense of the respect and affection in which she is held. The Cross Benches are a vital part of this House, and long may that remain.

Like others, I accept the strictures that there should be no tributes to the Lord Speaker today. I regret, however, that I will not be present on the day assigned for tributes, for personal reasons. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take 30 seconds to express my deepest sense of friendship, affection and gratitude for his service as Lord Speaker, as chair of the commission and in so many other ways. I worked with him as both Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, and he treated me in the same way on both occasions. He is a consummate servant of the House, in often not easy circumstances, and some of that may come out in the tributes, along with, in particular and as we all know, his love for and dedication to his wife. He is an outstanding servant of the House and will continue to be so for the rest of the month. I hope he will accept my apologies that I will not be present on the assigned day but will know that these brief words are no less deeply and sincerely meant.