Introductions

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That notwithstanding the practice of the House on introductions, a Peer who has sat in the House as an excepted hereditary peer pursuant to section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 may sit by virtue of a life peerage without introduction.

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

My Lords, as the House is aware, three sitting hereditary Peers have received life peerages and a further limited number will receive life peerages in a future list. The purpose of the Motion is to allow any existing hereditary Peer who has received or will receive a life peerage to take their seat to continue to sit in the House without a full introduction ceremony. This mirrors the Motion moved by Lord Williams of Mostyn in 1999. As in 1999, the change has the approval of His Majesty the King.

On the practicalities, if the Motion is agreed today, any hereditary Peer granted a life peerage will be required to take the oath and sign the roll to undertake to abide by the code, but the full ceremony of introduction, including robes, the involvement of Garter and supporters, and the reading of Letters Patent will not take place. Again, this mirrors the situation from 1999. This meets the best interests of the House as a whole and of the individual hereditary Peers concerned. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords: Legislative Procedures

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has, if any, to establish a modernisation committee to review the effectiveness, efficiency and cost of the House of Lords’ legislative procedures.

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

My Lords, it is helpful to review and consider the effectiveness of our procedures. I will continue to advocate for any changes through agreement in the usual channels and through the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I have no plans to set up a modernisation committee at the moment.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, just over 15 years ago, there was considerable dissatisfaction here with the way our scrutiny work was being performed. The Leader’s Group was set up and reported in 2011, recommending improved focus and better organisation for more effective and efficient scrutiny. In the light of recent events, some of us have come to the view that it is high time again that we had a look at the way that we are undertaking our legislative procedures. I know that the Leader has been taking some steps to effect changes and wants to use the Procedure Committee, but I believe that we should have a more effective and fundamental review, in the way that we had in 2011, and that this would be better established by a separate Select Committee. I hope she will review her position on that and move forward soon.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I always hate to disappoint my noble friend. There are many strengths to the work that we do in here on scrutiny, but I agree that, as it draws to a close, the current Session of Parliament has presented some challenges and at times has tested our procedures. I am always interested to hear proposals from noble Lords across the House. However, it is quite often the case that I have three noble Lords talk to me and give me five different ways of doing something. It is quite hard to find consensus at times. We do need to look at these things, and the Procedure Committee is a good way forward, but we will not stop there. This morning, I convened one of our regular meetings with the usual channels, where we discuss these issues, and the Lord Speaker came along as well. We want to give attention to these issues, but I am not convinced that the committee that my noble friend suggests is the best way of doing so.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, leaving aside the question of whether that largely meaningless word “modernisation” is an appropriate one to use in this context, could the Leader of the House, in her consideration of these issues, give priority to effectiveness over efficiency? When it comes to legislation, Governments love efficiency, but it is very often inimical to exacting scrutiny and challenge, which is the role of your Lordships.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has a good point; I am not sure that there is necessarily a difference. However, how effective we are in managing our time and the issues that we want to raise is a key issue for this House. How we use our time, whether we are making the best use of our time, and whether we are ensuring that the scrutiny we give to legislation is proportionate and will be listened to is a matter not just for the Government but for every Member of this House. If the Government are to listen, we have to play our part. A self-regulating House is also a House that has to show some self-restraint to ensure that our voice is heard in the right places.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, does the Leader agree that we do not need a modernising committee to tell us that frequent sittings past midnight are not the best way to do business? As far as I am concerned, it is not an efficient way of operating, and it fails a duty of care to not only staff but Members. In the new Session, if we could work more closely and, to paraphrase the Chief Whip, “talk less, vote quicker”, we would become more efficient and perhaps do business in a more timely manner, which would mean that the exceptional after-midnight sittings are the exception, not the rule.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the whole House would agree that very late nights should be the exception. The noble Lord suggests we talk less—I have to say one of the sadnesses of this role of mine is that I talk less in this House than I did before I did this role. But it is about making effective use of the time we have to make our points, have our debates and reach conclusions. There are times when we have felt that debates have been a little longer than they needed to be, but at no point do we in Government want to take steps to limit the scrutiny; we just want to do it more effectively.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has already referred to the work of the committee in 2010-11. One of the recommendations—and there were quite a few that were not implemented—was that the House start on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 2 pm. That was considered a step far too far in 2010. Fifteen years on, can the Leader tell us whether the time might be ripe now, finally, for looking at and rethinking the time the House may start its business and maybe finding a way for us to use our time and expertise more effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, before answering this Question I looked with some care at the recommendations from the Goodlad committee, and a number were not accepted at the time, including that Ministers should be able to answer Questions in either House, that the Lord Privy Seal should have a dedicated Question Time, and that there should be a more proactive role for the Lord Speaker. Those did not find favour with the House at that time—I hesitate to look at the Lord Speaker’s face at this point.

The issue of how we use our time is really important, and I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the next report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee—which I think is coming to the House on Thursday—about using time. The committee is recommending from all parties that we look at the time we spend debating SIs and that some extra time be available in Grand Committee, including, where required, a sitting that would start on Tuesday mornings. It is not about curtailing or extending time; let us use the time we have as effectively as we possibly can. The other thing I am keen to do is give certainty to Members about when business is happening and how long business will take, because that helps Members participate.

[Lord True (Con)]

I understand the principle behind the Question; there is too much repetitive talk in this House, often between different stages. But that is a matter for restraint on all sides. Will the noble Baroness opposite accept that I welcome very much the initiatives that she has been taking in the usual channels, and I support them in all defined ways to make our proceedings more expedient and work well for everybody? Will she also support the principle that I held to when I was Leader: not to seek in any way to limit the freedoms of individual Members in this House to exercise their rights? It is through those freedoms, not shared by MPs, that this House has become the great revising Chamber that it is.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not seek to curtail freedoms. I do not know whether there is anything specific the noble Lord has in mind. In a House that is self-regulating, we also seek self-restraint. That self-restraint is something that the whole House wants. The certainty for Members that the House is run in an orderly way—which was part of the point of our discussions in the usual channels this morning—is important. It is beholden on the whole House, as well as the leadership of the House, to ensure that Members abide by the conventions and do not feel they are something we can bypass when we feel like it.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, can the Leader of the House give an update on the progress that has been made, or not made, towards the Labour manifesto’s commitment to

“replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is probably not much I can say that is helpful to the noble Baroness. She will recall that the measures in the Labour Party manifesto are in three stages. The first stage, which was the removal of the hereditary Peers, will be completed at the end of Prorogation; for the second stage, we are awaiting the report from the committee looking at participation requirements of and retirement from the House; the third stage will be a matter for the Labour Party to progress in policy terms, and I cannot give her an update on that at this stage.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the Leader of the House welcome, as I do, what I think is a new spirit of intention, moving from proceedings to services that support Members, to engage with and respond to Members? I think that is led by the new Lord Speaker and the new Clerk of the Parliaments. I think it is very welcome that we are going to be listened to more about the services and how they are delivered in this House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I did not quite catch that, but I think that the noble Baroness referred to services of the House. My impression is that the current Lord Speaker and the past Lord Speaker and the Administration of the House have been talking and engaging more with Members, and that should continue. I will certainly keep an eye on that, because Members have an interest in how those services are delivered and how to make best use of them.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Leader agree, in relation to Private Members’ Bills starting in the House of Commons, that we should move toward standard pre-legislative scrutiny of the workability of those Bills before their detail is debated in either House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I suspect that that is not a generic question but one about a specific Bill. I do not think that it would be a standard procedure to have it in place for every Bill. I share the disappointment of many noble Lords that we have not concluded, or are unlikely now to conclude, the passage of that particular Private Member’s Bill, to send amendments back to the House of Commons. The responsibility of this House should be to ensure that we give proper scrutiny and send Bills back. Whether pre-legislative scrutiny would have assisted is something to consider, and it might be something that sponsors of Bills will want to look at in future.

Security Vetting

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will repeat the Statement the Prime Minister made earlier today:

“With permission, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.

Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with the House that while this Statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.

Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating the House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that the House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.

I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the humble Address Motion of 4 February.

In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.

I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that

‘when we are making appointments from outside the civil service … the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post’.

At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson

‘did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance’.

After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.

The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

To be clear, for many departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.

I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before he took up his post that the UKSV’s recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Peter Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:

‘The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington’.


When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about this last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.

On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:

‘The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February’.


It went on to say:

‘Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy’.


Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issues in question.

In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. As I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025. I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making a statement to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

On top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.

I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.

I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world: in Ukraine, the Middle East and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, one thing I agree with in this Statement is the recognition of the victims of the crime of Jeffrey Epstein. We are able to know what we know about an appointment which should never have been made only because of the patience and the persistence of the victims, and they should be at the forefront of all our minds.

At the start of this, on 11 November 2024, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case—now the noble Lord, Lord Case—gave very clear and appointment-specific advice to the Prime Minister if he chose to make a political appointment for the ambassador in Washington. I quote from the advice published in the first release of documents on 11 March this year:

“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice”.


This advice was specific. It was not about seeking clearance after the appointment; it was about seeking security clearances before confirming the choice.

In the House of Commons, Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister why this advice was disregarded and Peter Mandelson’s appointment was confirmed, approved by the King and announced prior to necessary security clearances being acquired. The Prime Minister replied that the subsequent review of the process had confirmed that it was followed. This was a non-answer, because the process was the Cabinet Secretary providing advice, which he did, that the Prime Minister chose to disregard. In the bundle of papers released in March, there was missing a minute between this advice and a reference on 12 December, a month later, to Peter Mandelson being referred to as the lead candidate. Can the Leader confirm that Parliament has been presented with all the information between the advice from the Cabinet Secretary in November and 12 December, when it was indicated that Peter Mandelson was now the lead candidate? Why is there no record of what the Prime Minister did with the advice issued on 11 November?

Just a few days later, on 18 December, the Palace was informed of the decision to appoint Mandelson, contrary to the advice that necessary security clearances should be acquired. What is all the more concerning is that we were told that the Prime Minister subsequently regretted making the appointment as a result of Mandelson’s lies in the due diligence process. But that an appointment was made in the first place, when the Prime Minister had been given the advice on 11 November on due diligence in respect of Peter Mandelson, is staggering. I remind the House of what that advice on the due diligence process was, and I remind the House that this was the lead candidate for appointment. It stated:

“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's House while he was in jail in June 2009 … In 2014 Mandelson also agreed to be a ‘founding citizen’ of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, and funded by Epstein”.


Surely this information alone should have been the basis on which, prior to any announcement, the Prime Minister should have decided that the reputational risk was too high, given the ongoing legal and congressional actions in the US at the time. He did not. The Prime Minister made a decision to set aside advice on acquiring vetting approval prior to making the announcement on 20 December and to set aside the reputational risk linked with Epstein’s crimes. Can the Leader confirm that the Foreign Secretary had seen the due diligence checklist report, as on business conflicts and the Epstein links, when he said in the government press release on 20 December:

“It is wonderful to welcome Peter back to the team”?


The Statement today puts all the blame on FCDO officials and none on accountability of Ministers. The Prime Minister stated today that

“given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations”

after Mandelson had been announced and his name had gone to the Palace two days before the press release. Given the seriousness and significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept the Prime Minister’s rationale for disregarding the advice given to him on 11 November that vetting should be acquired before the appointment, not before taking post. But quite astonishingly, the Prime Minister says

“if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment”.

But the appointment had already been made. Now, we must assume that there are questions on the accountability to Parliament.

The Prime Minister’s Statement today refers to the letter that the Foreign Secretary, alongside the Permanent Secretary, Sir Olly Robbins, provided to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which said that vetting

“concluded with the DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up the post”.

This misled Parliament, and the Government are saying that those who are accountable for that should not be the Ministers but officials—dismissed. We will hear from the sacked official, but the Prime Minister’s Statement alludes to other officials prior to Sir Olly taking up his post, and we are left with the uncomfortable position where only people who cannot answer to Parliament will be blamed, and no Ministers who are accountable to Parliament will be held to account. We await the work of parliamentary committees and the ISC, and I suspect we will also await the ministerial adviser report. Other Ministers have been held to account for what they have told Parliament; surely it must be the case that the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government are held to account also.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions in the time available. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who complained about the timing of the Statement, he usually asks me to repeat Statements made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible. It was my judgment, given the seriousness of the issue, that we should do it as soon as possible. He said about doing it in prime time; I think the House is pretty full to hear the Statement, and it is right that it is so, given the seriousness of it. He asked if I will come back tomorrow. I will always repeat the Prime Minister’s Statements in this House and take questions from your Lordships on any issue raised by the Prime Minister in the normal way and take questions in the normal way.

I think the noble Lord has got slightly confused between vetting and due diligence. There is no evidence that Peter Mandelson lied during the vetting process because we do not know what the vetting process had said. The Prime Minister said that he feels that he was not given accurate answers during the due diligence process, and he said that appointing Peter Mandelson was the wrong decision, for which he has apologised.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of victims, because too often we have just political debates. This started when the Epstein files were released, and I do not think, had those Epstein files not been released, we would have known the extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. Certainly on the issues around the information he was sending to him and the depth of the contact, we were not aware.

What we are talking about here is a failure of government, and it is extraordinary—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is a failure of good governance, in that there should be information made available to Ministers who are taking decisions. The fact that it was not made available is, as the Prime Minister said, extraordinary. Sir Chris Wormald has reviewed the process that was taken and it was correct. I will correct the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that Peter Mandelson did not getting vetting approval. The whole point is that he was given vetting approval; that is why people are quite astounded by this. The UK Security Vetting form—which is on the Government website for people to see—has two blocks; there is green, amber and red; and it has what the issues are and then what the recommendation is. The recommendation on that was not to give vetting, but the Foreign Office made the decision that it could pass the vetting.

It is one of those things that is a recommendation, but the vetting was then granted by the Foreign Office, so he was granted that vetting. No one could imagine that, with that information—when the Prime Minister and other Ministers are being asked and they are given the information that he has had the vetting—somebody did not flag that concerns were raised and that the recommendation was not to grant that vetting. The Prime Minister apologised for the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but in this case I think he is quite right to be angry and concerned that he was not informed of the red flags that were raised.

I was asked about what Olly Robbins did wrong. It may be that he lost the confidence of Ministers by quite clearly not giving the information. In terms of the process that was available, I think most of us think that there is an issue of judgment in how Ministers and officials would deal with information they are given. He had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. But I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House who had had that information would have considered it appropriate not to provide that information to the Prime Minister and other Ministers who were making the decisions.

This has been difficult. It is a difficult way forward for the Government, but the Prime Minister’s decisions on changing the process so that we do not have such a process in future—it should be absolutely clear that due diligence and vetting have been passed before any appointment is announced—would be a more sensible way forward. The review that Sir Adrian Fulford is taking forward should shine a light on this and look for a better way forward.

[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 up to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. This is set out in the Companion, in chapter 6, pages 86 and 87—paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her repetition of the Statement made by the Prime Minister earlier. I went to the other place to listen to the Prime Minister, and I have listened again to what the noble Baroness has had to say this afternoon. I find it impossible to work out, from both the original Statement and the repetition, why on earth the Prime Minister wanted this man to be the ambassador in the United States in the first place. Every dog and cat in the street knew that Lord Mandelson was a wrong ’un. What went wrong?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that he made a wrong decision, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that the number of people who praised the decision at the time and then criticised it later is quite surprising. Yes, all evidence shows now that this was the wrong candidate for the job, but part of that would have been exposed had this process been more open and transparent for Ministers. If they had had more information, we may have seen a different outcome.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, the totally new twist to this long-running saga is the discovery that the Foreign Office officials failed to give any information about this failed vetting to their ministerial masters, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. So far, I find this as mystifying as everybody else. Surely by this afternoon, Olly Robbins and other officials have been asked to give their explanation for this incredible behaviour. We cannot do anything or know where we go next on this extraordinary feature of this multifaceted case until we know what on earth induced these senior and responsible civil servants to do anything as irresponsible as to withhold this from the Prime Minister. As the noble Baroness the Leader and the Prime Minister are giving Statements today, can we be told—because they must have asked this question and had an answer—what the answers are and tell us what explanation and what reason Olly Robbins and the FCDO have been giving for completely withholding this information?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right. When you see the multiple opportunities to inform the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary that the recommendation from UKSV was that the vetting would not be granted, it is extraordinary that it was not passed on to Ministers. The reason for the Statement today is that the Prime Minister said he wanted, as soon as he had more information, to present it to the House at the earliest opportunity, and he has done that.

I understand that Olly Robbins is giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow and there will be information available after that. I do not want to paraphrase—like the noble Lord, I am looking at the papers and reading it—but I think he thought he was doing the right thing. I have concerns that his interpretation of the law may not have been right, because it seems extraordinary that he could withhold information of this seriousness from Ministers.

The very reason and the purpose for such a process of vetting is that those making the decisions have the information they need on which to make those decisions, and if they are not given that information, I think most people will just find it extraordinary. There would be, I think, a natural assumption that when you go through this process, those who are making the decisions have access and information provided to them. If any red flags were raised by the vetting process, they should have been provided to Ministers. But there will be the opportunity; there is a Select Committee tomorrow, and we may hear more about this.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the humble Address that Parliament passed gave the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, the responsibility to consider those documents that, if released, would affect national security or international relations. This February, we asked the Cabinet Office to prioritise all the documentation relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. When we received that information, there was no documentation concerning his vetting. We raised this with the Cabinet Office, only to be told that it did not exist. Last Thursday, the Guardian indicated that the document did exist. We have now received it and will consider it this week at one of our meetings. Now we have the vetting documentation to consider, but I have asked the Cabinet Office about the decision-making process in the Foreign Office to reject the recommendation in the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Again, the Cabinet Office has told me that nothing exists. If it does exist, could my noble friend somehow expedite that information and ensure that it gets to the ISC as quickly as possible?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and his committee for their work on this. He underlines our concerns; the humble Address was very clear that all information should be provided. In terms of information that is missing or was not available at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point, and I apologise for not answering it before—the Prime Minister has made an absolute commitment that all available information should be made public under the humble Address. National security information will be referred to the committee and anything that the police consider could be essential for a prosecution, and, if disclosed, would damage a potential one, may be delayed. The Foreign Office has gone back to the FCDO and is very keen to get all available information. It may be that some documents that were not available in the first tranche should be available in the second tranche or later. I think it is clear to everybody—the Prime Minister was extremely clear on this today—that all information should be available and the humble Address should be complied with in full.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will join me in paying tribute to our many diplomats around the world who do a sterling job in representing our country. I have a very simple question. She talked about the judgment of the then permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Surely there was an onus on the Prime Minister not just to listen but to ask. Why did he not?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I agree that our diplomats around the world do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Anyone who has had to contact our embassies at a time of trouble or difficulty abroad will know how professional and excellent they are. The noble Lord is right that this all comes down to judgment. The Prime Minister has apologised for his judgment in making the appointment, but others must stand by the judgments they made, be questioned on them and account for them. That is what is happening as we get more information. Those of us sitting on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. It takes a big character to stand up and say sorry when they have made a mistake. That does not always happen. It has not always happened in the past. On the big judgments, we look at the international situation, where the Prime Minister refused just to follow in the wake of President Trump and acted in the national interest. That shows true judgment. That is why we on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we have had a lot of discussions in this House over the last year about employment rights and particularly about unfair dismissal. To be fair, a dismissal must have a valid reason—we cannot make a rigid judgment on the dismissal of Olly Robbins at this stage—but it must also follow fair procedure. That typically means investigating the issue, informing the employee in writing, holding a disciplinary hearing and offering an appeal. According to the press, Olly Robbins was dismissed in a phone call on Thursday night. Can the Minister confirm that due, fair procedure was followed? If not, can she explain why the Government are so strong on insisting that all other employers should follow it, but it does not apply to them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there have been times when the Prime Minister has said that he has had to act quickly, as when he sacked Peter Mandelson. I do not think any Member of this House raised due process when he was called and told that he would lose his position. I will look further into this, but I expect the Prime Minister would have been given advice on how to proceed. It is a serious matter when a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary say they do not have confidence in an official, but I expect due procedure to be followed as this goes forward.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her clarity and for repeating the Statement, as others have echoed. My question is about risk in the wider system. I speak as someone who has been through this system, understands how intensive the questioning was, and is aware that thousands and thousands of these clearances are processed every year for the security of the nation. Will the scope of the review include whether there have been other breaches or lapses in judgment in questions of clearance at the most senior level because of the volume of people who pass through the system, and where there might be other risks?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I think we are all relieved to know that he has been through the process. It is a very intrusive and robust process, which is why it is right that the details are not conveyed to anybody outside those undertaking it. However, the results and conclusions should be. My understanding is that Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation will look at the process in the round. My noble friend makes an important point, because there are many positions that need this degree of developed vetting. It is robust and intrusive, but if information is not passed on in a timely and accurate way then the value of that process is not fair, including on those who go through it. I will double-check this, but my understanding is that it will be a full investigation into whether the process is fit for purpose or whether changes need to be made.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister ignored the advice of the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, to do the vetting before the appointment was announced?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the Prime Minister received a number of items of advice. He receives advice every day on different issues. That has been investigated since and the then Cabinet Secretary said that the appropriate, right process had been followed.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Roe, I have been through the developed vetting process. It is intrusive and extremely thorough, going line by line through your bank statements, with detailed and intensive questions about personal relationships and everything else. I was doing so for a ministerial appointment. It was made quite clear in writing that if I failed the vetting process, I could not be appointed or continue in that role. I have also chaired a public body where one of our committee failed the vetting process and was removed from office. Are ambassadors in some way separate from that process? I think that is the question that noble Lords would like answered.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Yes, there is a difference, although the process undertaken by UKSV may be very similar. A summary is provided, but it is not a pass or fail. It will look at concerns, whether low, moderate or high. On the overall decision, it can approve clearance, it can approve it with risk management, or it can be denied. The difference here is that the Foreign Office, on getting that recommendation, did not have to follow it. It did, and was able to, override it. The concern is that it did not inform Ministers of the outcome of the vetting. What has caused Ministers most concern is that, at the various opportunities there were to inform them that, although vetting was granted, it was against the recommendation of UKSV, the information was never passed on.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, is it possible that the reason the Foreign Office did not inform the Prime Minister that it had overruled the security advice—which it is perfectly entitled to do—was that it knew very well that the Prime Minister was so wedded to the appointment of Mandelson and had appointed him, as we have heard, prior to the vetting process taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is hard to say what is in somebody’s mind when they make a judgment call. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he would not have made the appointment against the vetting recommendation. I do not think it should be the case that officials could make that judgment and not let the Prime Minister or other Ministers know that they are making that judgment. They might think they know what is in the Prime Minister’s mind, but they have to give the Prime Minister the information.

It is also the case that the Prime Minister was clear that, had he known this—and I think this also goes for other Ministers—there would have been a different outcome. What is the point of such a system if those who actually make the decisions on appointments are not given the outcome of the process?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would have not made the appointment if he had the information from UK Security Vetting. At any point, did the Prime Minister or those working for him ask what the result of the UK security vetting process was? If not, why not?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My understanding is that the Foreign Office was asked to provide this to No. 10 and the Prime Minister. I could not tell the noble Lord who asked who, but the information was requested as it had been raised. However, they were never informed that there had been a recommendation; they were told that the appointment had been passed by the Foreign Office, but were not told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I first echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord True, who had some very searching questions. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the Statement today. My question is one that I have raised twice before. There will be long and thorough discussions concerning the vetting process. However, we know that, despite the vetting process taking place following the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States of America, at the time of the appointment, the Prime Minister knew that Lord Mandelson had remained friendly with a convicted paedophile. These are two separate issues. When we look at judgment, therefore, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House really consider that the Prime Minister showed any judgment at all?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have already been clear to the House that I trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. The noble Baroness is raising two quite separate things. On the first, the Prime Minister is clear that, when the due diligence process was undertaken, he was not given accurate information by Peter Mandelson. He has said that he would have made a different decision based on that information.

The issue of vetting is different and covers issues such as national security. It is inconceivable that, when the recommendation from UK Security Vetting was that clearance should not be granted, it was not accepted by the Foreign Office, and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were not told. I come back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: what is the point of having this intrusive and robust process if the information is not given to those who make the decisions?

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of whether the Foreign Office has turned down red flag security briefings on ambassadors before? How many times has this happened before? If it has, what is the point of spending money on security services if nobody listens to them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is not just ambassadors; a number of public appointments are made under this process, and this is something that must be looked at. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I do not know whether others know, but we need that answer as to whether recommendations have been ignored in other cases.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister used his considerable communication skills to make it clear that he wanted to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador. Why did he not use the same skills to make clear to officials that this would be only on the condition that Lord Mandelson passed the vetting process? If that had happened, the noble Baroness would not be at the Dispatch Box now and the Government would not be in this mess.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think it is reasonable that the Prime Minister should be given information. If you make an appointment to such an important position, the expectation is—as we all know—that it is subject to security clearance. The Prime Minister was told only that Peter Mandelson had passed the security clearance; he was never told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV. The fault-line is between the recommendation of UKSV and the decision that was taken to grant developed vetting. That line is what has caused the most concern. We will have to investigate it, look at the process in future and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, learn whether it has happened in any other cases.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill is a short but important piece of legislation, which has come to us unamended from the other place. It seeks to amend the statutory limit on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. The proposed change to 120 reflects the average size of Governments since 2010 and would largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers, which I know has been a source of concern for noble Lords in recent years. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet modern government demands.

For noble Lords who are not familiar with the current position, it might be helpful to shed some light on it and why the change is required. As noble Lords will be aware, under our constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the other place and all ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit is 109 salaries. It has not changed since the 1975 Act was introduced over half a century ago.

In addition, there is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the other place, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. That limit is 95. There is no equivalent limit on the number of your Lordships who are able to serve as Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 also sets out salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leader of the Opposition in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whip in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the other place. The Bill does not seek to amend those salaries.

Within the current limit of 109 Ministers, there are 83 salaries that can be allocated at the Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary ranks. A further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Advocate-General for Scotland, and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips. I ask noble Lords to bear with me with all these numbers. I just want to give absolute clarity to the House.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits under the Act are 21 Secretary of State-rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State-rank and Minister of State-rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State-, Minister of State- and Parliamentary Secretary-rank salaries. These limits were set in 1975, which is over 50 years ago.

As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured a larger ministerial team than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. That has ranged from an average of 108 Ministers in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 Ministers in the current Government. This has led to an unsatisfactory position where Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. Historically, this has fallen predominantly to Ministers in your Lordships’ House.

I know that this regrettable situation has been a source of frustration for many years. It was also described by one noble Lord as a “humiliation” during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. In Committee, Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and, on Report, Amendments 13 and 13A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, sought to address this by preventing unpaid Ministers being eligible for membership of your Lordships’ House. The subsequent government defeat on Report when the mood of the House was tested showed us the strength of the feeling there was on this issue. The Government rejected the amendment at ping-pong as it did not deliver the change needed and it did not increase the overall number of ministerial salaries available. But, as I said at the time, the amendment itself raised an important principle, and the Government are pleased to bring forward legislation today which will largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers. It remains the case that the Prime Minister will decide on the allocation of ministerial salaries.

I am confident that the whole House supports the notion that Ministers in this place and the other place should be paid for the work they do. Ministers in this House work extremely hard, often managing some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios in government. For a significant number of them to serve in the House unpaid cannot be right. In terms of the business of the House, a Minister in this House from either party could be doing the work of three or four Ministers in the other place.

To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank at the request of the Prime Minister. As I have said, they will operate cumulatively. This means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for one additional salary at the Secretary of State rank—that increases to 22; four additional salaries at Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall number to 54 from 50; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary level, increasing the overall limit of those from 83 to 94.

If all additional salaries were allocated to the most senior Minister possible, this would result in one extra salary for Secretaries of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Advocate-General for Scotland and Government Whips remain unchanged. The limits on other officeholder salaries also remain unchanged.

As I have said, the increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers in each Government since 2010. The change is set out in Clause 1. The existing limit of 95 Ministers who could be Members of the other place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 will be retained. Therefore, 25 salaries will, in effect, be reserved for Lords Ministers.

It is also important to stress that the Bill does not increase the pay of Ministers. Pay in your Lordships’ House increased in 2019 and has been frozen at that level since then. Ministerial pay for Ministers in the other place has not risen since 2008. In addition to the ministerial salary, Ministers in the other place receive a salary for their role as an MP, which of 1 April this year is £98,599. If noble Lords look at the Explanatory Notes, they will see that it looks as though Lords Ministers are paid at a higher salary than Ministers in the House of Commons, yet Ministers in the House of Commons also receive their MP salary, but for Lords Ministers, that is the only payment they receive. The Prime Minister maintained the ministerial salary freeze on entering office, and the Bill does not change that either.

To conclude, this short Bill has a welcome aim: to ensure that the Prime Minister has the flexibility to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government. It is also right that anyone in this country can aspire to be a Minister in either House, no matter what their background is, rather than relying on personal wealth in lieu of salary, and the burden of unpaid Ministers has disproportionately fallen on Ministers in this House.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, who helpfully indicated his support for the Bill during Third Reading of the hereditary Peers Bill. I am grateful for his support and hope the Bill will receive similar support across the House, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has gone rather wide of the subject in many ways, but that has not been unhelpful.

We are fortunate in that we have a number of very experienced Ministers in this House. A number of us had ministerial lives before coming to this place. I can say on a personal level that having experience as a Minister and taking on a different job makes it easier. For Ministers coming in for the first time and taking on a ministerial role, the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Norton of Louth, and others made valid points about the support available for training. There is no other job like being a Minister.

The work that has to be undertaken in this place is extensive. I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey for the example that she gave to identify how ministerial brains in the House of Lords have to bounce around so many subjects and absorb so much information. Whether I am sitting on that side of the Chamber or this side, I am consistently impressed by the work that they do.

I will try to address some of the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. We have discussed this issue over a number of years, not just since we have been in Government, and he is right that it is a long-overdue measure. The noble Lord always talks about ending the freeze on ministerial salaries. That freeze on ministerial salaries is not addressed in this Bill, but, when it was introduced by Gordon Brown and then reduced by David Cameron, people did not think about the House of Lords. A Member of Parliament in the other place on a ministerial salary also gets an index-linked salary. However, I think I am right in saying that I am paid less in cash terms than my noble friend Lady Royall was when she did this job many years ago. Therefore, for Members of this House it has had a disproportionate effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that a number of Members who have made lots of money take on ministerial jobs. However, many who take on unpaid ministerial jobs do not have lots of money, but make a decision and a choice to serve. We should be very grateful to them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, it particularly affects those Ministers who have to travel as part of their job. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and my noble friend Lord Hanson were mentioned. Ministers who are not being paid a ministerial salary can claim the daily allowance if they are in the House. But we expect our Ministers not to be tied to Parliament. We expect them to go out, to engage with people, to see some of the things that they are talking about, to have meetings in other places and to travel overseas, so they have been greatly disadvantaged.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Barber of Chittlehampton as new Members seeing the work done by Ministers in this House. That was really helpful. My noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton made a comment about it being of greater benefit to the House and the Government. I think having paid Ministers is probably of less advantage to the Government, because the Government must fork out the salaries rather than the House. But it is of enormous value to your Lordships’ House as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about the whiteboard of ministerial shuffles. My first reshuffle was done on pieces of paper stuck on with Blu Tack. It is now interactive. It sometimes seems that Lords Ministers are thought about afterwards when other ministerial positions are taken, yet Members of the House of Commons whom I have spoken to who have seen the work of Lords Ministers and others in the ministerial team all comment on the work that our Ministers do. I think the noble Baroness was right.

I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on whether there are too many Ministers, but this has been the reality of government for some time. He is right to ask whether we get efficient government, but the pace of government and the pace of communication these days is a pressure that we do not always realise. I was reading some political diaries, I think by Duff Cooper, before the Second World War, and Chips Channon. The pace they were working at was significantly different from what we are doing now. If they had to travel somewhere, they were talking about several days to get there—journeys that now take a few hours. The pace of ministerial life and the pace of public life are significantly different.

I thought the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Elliott, on ministerial training were interesting. I was thinking back to when I was first a Minister and the support and training that I got. There is some degree of mentoring, but it is more difficult when a new Government comes in after a period in opposition. All Ministers need time to find their feet. Across the House, we see Ministers grow in confidence and ability into their positions. That experience does count, so I do take that on board.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made an interesting suggestion about economic growth and tying ministerial salaries to it. I would be significantly better off if that was the case, after the complete ministerial freeze for many years. It is very unlikely to be in the King’s Speech. I cannot give away any confidences about what might be in it, but MPs’ salaries are determined by IPSA, an independent body, and I wish the noble Lord luck in trying to persuade IPSA of that. The ministerial pay freeze remains in place. However, there is a point about members of the public understanding the formula by which decisions are taken on that, so I am grateful to him for making that point on growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, made some interesting comments. I was thinking back through my ministerial life as he was speaking. My sense is that most Prime Ministers do not like big reshuffles, but, once you start, one thing happens and then another. There is something about having experience in a department and getting knowledge, but there is also something about bringing a fresh perspective on something. He raised an important point about longevity in office and also the ability to show leadership and decision-making. Those two qualities are hard to learn, but for Ministers they are essential.

I shall tell just one anecdote, so as not delay the House. On one occasion in a new post as Northern Ireland Minister, I was given a cheque and a letter to sign. It was to reimburse a mother whose son had forgotten his bus pass on the way to school. He sent in a form to be reimbursed for his bus fare, and I was being asked to sign the letter and the cheque. I sent it back and said, “I don’t intend to sign this. This is not a matter for me”. I was told, “But our previous Minister did that”. I said, “Yeah, he had one department, I’ve got three, I’m not doing it”. It is up to Ministers to set the boundaries of where they think it is appropriate that there is ministerial intervention. His point on that was really welcome.

This has been a helpful debate. There are a number of points to take note of. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, mentioned other issues around maternity pay. They are not the subject of this Bill. I take the point she makes about unfairness. I think she was probably the first Member of this House to take maternity leave as a Minister. I remember some very nerve-wracking moments in that July before she gave birth when she was rather large and it was a very hot day and we were all hoping that she would last to the end of the debate before giving birth.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, it is probably a sign of how the House of Lords has changed. It was probably never anticipated that Members of the House of Lords would be giving birth and being young mothers. That just shows that society is changing. We are not a House of people who can afford to do the job for nothing. If we want Ministers to be recompensed in terms of the status of the role to recognise the work they do and to be fair in how we treat them, they should be paid. I will take the points away that she has made, and I am grateful for the time she gave me in discussing these things. They are not something that I was familiar with, and I found that extremely helpful.

I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I think this Bill is the right thing to do for this House. I end by saying that across both parties we are grateful for the efforts those in ministerial roles make and the time they take. I think there is significant support for this legislation across the House. There may be demands to go further and to look at other issues, and I understand that, but I am a great believer in incremental change.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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. That is how I started my response to the Statement on 2 March. I went on to say 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”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1080.]

From the Conservative Opposition, the approach was different. We were told that, when Trump called, we should have answered and been in it all the way: a strategic error. Yesterday in the House of Commons, with quite astonishing hubris, the leader of the Conservative Party said:

“I am sure the Prime Minister … will … misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 553.]


We all know the truth. It was obvious, given the untruthfulness, unreliability and mendacious approach of the Trump Administration that what they had initially called for—regime change of that homicidal regime in Iran—they are now saying they never claimed should happen in the first place. They said Iran should never have a nuclear programme; now they are saying that there should be a moratorium on the programme. I do not know how that fits with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said.

With regard to the most effective way of reducing the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability for weapons, we supported the Government of the noble Lord, Lord True, when they criticised the Trump Administration and said that withdrawing from the JCPOA was an error. We disagreed with his Government when they denied the case for proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I hope the Government and the Leader can update us on where we will see the legislative changes with regard to the IRGC that we have been promised.

Now the focus from America is on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open. That will be complex and costly. In his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid summed it up:

“For the thousandth time, it has been proven: military force without a diplomatic plan does not lead to a decisive victory”.


We agree with him.

On 2 March I also said:

“There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1081.]


I also said there would be economic consequences and costs to the United Kingdom. These were obvious. The impact on the economy requires an immediate response. It is likely that the surge in fuel prices will mean a potential £2 billion in extra tax revenue to the Government. That should be spent on cutting fuel duty by 10p, bringing down prices at the pump by 12p per litre, to bring immediate relief to individuals and businesses. But we will need to do more, because these economic repercussions will last months at the very least.

The Statement is on the Middle East and there are wider consequences that have not been referred to so far. In Gaza, 700,000 displaced people are still living in emergency shelters and being denied the vital food and medical assistance they require. Just in recent weeks, 5,000 children have been screened for malnutrition. In the West Bank, settler and outpost violence against civilians is being conducted with impunity. The UK Government must finally say that there are repercussions for our relationship with the Israeli Government as a result. Continuing restrictions on food and humanitarian assistance is a perpetuation of breaches of international humanitarian law.

On Lebanon, the humanitarian toll is extreme. I have been to Lebanon frequently and have been checking in with friends who are living in extreme worry. It is chilling that 1 million people—one in six of the population—are displaced and the IDF is targeting civilian infrastructure and bombing heavily populated areas without targeted munitions, which is a clear tactic of collective punishment. That is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law. Over the last 15 years, the UK has committed over £100 million, including an extra £17 million under the last year of the previous Government, which I welcomed, to train the Lebanese army. Last autumn, the UK and the Lebanese army opened a training centre in Zahrani, an area now seeing forced evacuation and attacks by the IDF. What is our ongoing relationship with the Lebanese army, especially in areas where we are seeing military action from the IDF?

The fundamental strategic consequence is that the erratic and untruthful US President and his Administration are now a strategic risk to the UK’s interests. All this leads to an undeniable economic, security and social case for working much more closely with our EU allies.

Finally, not mentioned in the Statement or so far today are the wider consequences of what is happening in this region. We are now entering the fourth year of the war in Sudan: the three-year anniversary was just this week. It is three years and one week since I was in Khartoum and it is heartbreaking to see the human toll on a country I love. I am glad that there was a Berlin conference on humanitarian assistance and I would like an update from the Leader on the UK offer for that conference, but we need to do more. We need to restrict the blood gold trade, we need more on protection of civilians and we need to see no-drone zones. For some young civilians from Sudan, the UK could offer hope. They will be wanting to study in the UK, and it is deeply regrettable that a Labour Government have decided to ban visa applications from those young civilians who wish a better life for themselves.

We kept it for Ukraine, but we are banning it for Sudan. Why is that? I hope the Leader will agree with me that the future of Sudan—one Sudan, united—will be one that is led by civilians and protects civilians, especially women and girls, who have suffered far too great a toll. The legitimate future of Sudan is one that is civilian and representative. I hope that the UK, as penholder, will give a clear statement that that is our intention.

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

My Lords, I listened to both noble Lords’ speeches. We ended on one note and started on another. It was the appropriate place to end, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did, on the catastrophic and heartbreaking humanitarian issues not only in Sudan, as he mentioned, but across the region, where people’s lives are changed irrevocably in so many different ways and lives are lost. That is something we should never forget when we talk about any of the political and diplomatic efforts. Lives are lost and lives are changed.

The noble Lord, Lord True, was right to praise the work of our Armed Forces and military for what they do. On our behalf and in the national interest, they put themselves in the line of danger. Many of us will know people and have friends and family who are engaged in the Armed Forces. We have nothing but respect and admiration for them.

Does the world feel a safer place today than it did several weeks ago? That is one of the concerning issues here and why it is so important that we focus our efforts on the diplomatic work that has to be done to ensure safety and act in the national interest.

The Prime Minister has been clear and consistent throughout this conflict. His tone and his way of looking at it have been measured. I noted the comments of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis. The leader of the Opposition has not been as consistent. Her own spokesperson said just recently that at the start of this conflict the leader of the Opposition was very clear that she would have let Israel and the US use our bases for their offensive on Iran. Yet yesterday she said:

“I was talking about verbal support”.


That is not really consistent. What has to be consistent are the efforts that we should make as a country towards de-escalation of such a conflict. The priorities have to be de-escalation and getting the Strait of Hormuz open. There are two aspects to this. One is the toll on the civilian populations and the other is the world economic situation, which is getting worse. I will come on to defence spending more widely, but on all these issues it is important that there is the recognition of a national interest that crosses party boundaries more than any other.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me a number of questions. On Hezbollah, we completely condemn the attacks on Israel but also think that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we have a very good relationship with the military and the Government in Lebanon. The Lebanese Government have been courageous in trying to stand up against Hezbollah and have condemned Hezbollah, which in this country is fully proscribed as a terrorist organisation. We will continue to support Lebanon’s sovereignty, Government and armed forces. We will work closely with them. That is a good relationship and the place where we should be.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the Iranian ports. My understanding is that it is the blockading of the Iranian ports. President Trump made the announcement, and it started today. We always have to see how these things work out in practice. On Friday, the Prime Minister and President Macron will convene and bring together 40 nations in common endeavour. That is a significant achievement. If we are to see peace and the ceasefire holding—a very fragile ceasefire at the moment—it will be done by diplomatic efforts around the world and nations coming together. I commend the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown in using his convening role.

I agree with both noble Lords that the use of language, wherever it is from, that is careless or deliberately escalating conflict has no place here. How we use our words and what we say will be really important going forward. Friday’s meeting will be important, and I am sure the Prime Minister will report back on that.

Noble Lords asked about the IRGC proscription. I have to gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think his party abstained on this issue previously when there was a vote in this House on my noble friend’s amendment. If I am wrong I will check, but that is the impression I was given. He will know that we currently have over 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We recognise the threats posed and we keep this under constant review.

Obviously, we will not comment, just as previous Governments have not, on proscription measures and what action is being taken. But I can tell the House that we are taking forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, including, as was in his report, developing a proscription-like tool for state threats that may require legislation further down the line. I will come back to the House on that when we have something to report.

I am surprised that I am running out of time in giving my response, but the priorities are de-escalation and opening the Strait of Hormuz. We are working with others on that. We have military capacity as well as political and diplomatic, and we are looking at the logistical arrangements. If I have missed any questions, I will come back to them through the other answers I give on the Statement.

[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 up to 20 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members but not speeches. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8, on pages 86 and 87. We will hear from the Conservative Benches first.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and draw attention to my interests in the Middle East and in working with conflict resolution organisations. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending, as my noble friend Lord True did, the role of Pakistan in its convening of the important bridge of diplomacy? I appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in convening Friday’s meeting. Pakistan’s chief of army staff—the field-marshal—has played a notable role, as have Foreign Minister Dar and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

My question is specifically about our Gulf partners. In welcoming the Prime Minister’s recent visit, can the Leader of the House give reassurance on the C-SIPA arrangement that we have with key countries such as Bahrain to ensure their long-term security and prosperity? Linked to that is the reassurance that our Gulf partners are seeking on their security for any other future challenge that may come. Also linked to that is the support that we are giving to Gulf nations and to Pakistan in their diplomatic efforts.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that Pakistan has done a great service on this, and the role of the Prime Minister and other leaders in Pakistan must be recognised. Our Prime Minister did that and has thanked and praised them for their work in not the easiest of circumstances.

The noble Lord is right about the longer-term partnerships with Bahrain and other Gulf states. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with and recently met various leaders. That is an important relationship, because they are the ones who are also talking to us about the protection of their own safety and security. I can give an assurance that those are long-term relationships that are valued by us and other countries.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Purvis, particularly on the West Bank. To follow up on the point made on Pakistan by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, since the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday there is news now that Donald Trump is hopeful that, potentially in the next 48 hours, there could be a breakthrough. What contact have we had with Pakistan, in particular with Field-Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif? I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to get world leaders here later this week, but if the talks resume in Pakistan, we may have to ensure that we are at least hooked in to the Pakistani Government to make sure that British interests are served during those talks.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

We will fully co-operate with Pakistan and give it support with the valuable work that it is doing. There are different strands of discussion going on in different areas. It was probably optimistic for people to think that in one set of talks a conclusion would be reached that would solve all problems and issues. I remember from my days as a Northern Ireland Minister that you would often have talks about talks before you even had the talks. There were 21 hours of talks. It was an ambitious programme. I hope that we will see further talks—there are optimistic signs that talks could continue. The Pakistani Prime Minister will be crucial in convening and hosting those talks and negotiating. If we can find a way forward where stages of progress can be made, that makes it easier to take the next step. If you are trying to climb a ladder, it is one step before another, one foot in front of another. All of us would want to see every effort made. Those diplomatic efforts for talks would be very supported. Let us just take one step forward and see what changes can be made.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to answer questions on the Statement on the Middle East and to the Prime Minister for his diplomatic efforts in the Gulf. From these Benches, we believe that the initiation of this conflict, the attacks by Iran on its neighbours and the closure of the straits are unjustified. I know from my recent conversation with the Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf that the peoples of the nine nations in the diocese dearly want peace from the threat and the reality of war. I agree with the Minister that the focus now needs to be desperately on de-escalation.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree with me that the new-found partnership between the United Kingdom and the Gulf states bolsters the opportunity for diplomacy to resolve a conflict which has otherwise incalculable consequences and which still bears heavily in a very costly way, and with great suffering, on Lebanon? I also raise the severe distress on these Benches at the unprecedented barring of the Latin Patriarch from the Holy Sepulchre on Maundy Thursday, the restricted access to Christians since and the continuing threats to the status quo in Jerusalem, including the al-Aqsa compound.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Across the House, whatever views are held, there is rightly unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime and the actions that it has taken against its own people as well as its external actions. It is quite clear that the House is united on that. The right reverend Prelate is right that our relationship with the Gulf states is very important, and it is one that the Prime Minister values. In the House of Commons yesterday, he made it quite clear that it is valued on both sides: they have welcomed the visits that he has made and the engagement that he has had with them. On the final point, yes, the ability to worship as people want to and to recognise that is extremely important in a civilised society. It is something that we should all strive for and support worldwide.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of Hamas refusing to disarm, which was a key plank of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza? Is there not a risk of linking Lebanon to the wider ceasefire, because Lebanon has effectively been invaded by Iran in the form of the terrorist Hezbollah? Every time that Israel tries to defend itself, which it must, Iran will claim that the deal has been violated, close the straits and choke the world economy. Finally, was the Lord Privy Seal as shocked as I was when listening to the Liberal Democrats, who are more critical of our allies in Israel than they are of Iran and, when they speak about Gaza and Hezbollah, are unable to utter a single word of criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is shouting across the Chamber. I will leave him to answer the noble Lord’s point on his views.

It is right that we condemn violence, terrorism and attacks from wherever they come. We feel that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. This is not a war that the people of Lebanon want. They have been courageous in calling out and condemning Hezbollah’s attacks and actions. We want to see that division between the Government and people of Lebanon and Hezbollah. Israel has the right to defend itself, but we believe that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that we should be proud that our Prime Minister, acting in the national interest, resolutely refused to engage in this illegal war—in marked contrast to Mr Farage and Ms Badenoch?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend is right: the Prime Minister has been consistent throughout this. Defensive action to protect the UK’s interests is vital, and that is the role that we will take. However, there is some confusion about the position of the Official Opposition. The leader of the Opposition said that she was talking about verbal support, so she may have changed her mind and there may be some retreat by both Reform and the Conservative Party from the unequivocal support given to President Trump at the beginning of this. What is important, though, wherever we started, is that we all strive towards de-escalation. Escalation in this conflict serves nobody in the region well. If we want to see peace across the region, when millions are suffering, lives are being changed irrevocably and the world economy is being affected, de-escalation is the only way forward.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that Sir Keir Starmer changed his position and offered President Trump limited support when he said that British lives were at risk in the region. I think that was verbatim. The Jewish community was very shocked by that, because what he meant was British lives in the region of the Gulf. British lives—there are tens of thousands of them in Israel—have been under Iranian rocket attack for months. In the wide-ranging speech which he gave yesterday, which for some reason mentions Brexit and Liz Truss but is not supposed to be political, he says—I have the text here—that

“Diplomacy is the right path”.


How can we have diplomacy with Hezbollah? Since 2 March, 5,000 rockets have landed in northern Israel; that is about 150 rockets a day. There are something like 25,000 short-range rockets capable of 40-kilometre range, stockpiled south of the Litani River right now. Rather than criticising Israel, is it not time that the Government recognised that Israel has a duty to protect its citizens—and the many British citizens who are living in or visiting Israel—and that the attacks that Israel is making, which are not targeting civilians, need to be understood?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord may have misunderstood the Prime Minister. He has been consistent in saying that British bases could be used for defensive action but not offensive action. The noble Lord is also wrong in that the Prime Minister did not talk about having diplomacy with Hezbollah. We condemn totally Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. They are totally wrong. Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation in this country, and that will remain. I hope that is clear. What we have said is that the Lebanese Government are very clear in their opposition to Hezbollah. There are civilians around the world who are suffering. To equate Hezbollah with the Lebanon Government at this stage, when they are condemning Hezbollah, is not the route that we are taking or should be taking. We think that the ceasefire should affect Lebanon. We want to see peace across the region. We have been very supportive of Israel, the two-state solution and Israel’s right to exist. The Prime Minister has been clear across all those areas.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House rightly condemned attacks that the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its own people and those in surrounding states—in Israel, the Gulf and others. She was being urged by both Front Benches, with whom I fully agree, to proscribe the IRGC, and we keep waiting for news on that. The United States seems to manage to keep channels open, if that is the motivation, while having proscribed the IRGC, so there is an interesting difference in practice there.

The Iranian regime is repressing people across borders, just like China does. I am hearing that it has agents who are abusing our asylum system. People are planted by the Iranian regime to claim asylum in this country and then use that as a platform to repress Iranian human rights defenders who are in this country. Even if members of the regime in Iran are sanctioned, their family members seem to manage to live a life of luxury in the West, including in this country, and to own loads of property. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what actions are being taken against the transnational repression against Iranians in this country? Will the Government look at the property portfolios of family members of the IRGC?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising a number of important points. I cannot say more about proscription—she will understand why, as I have said it previously. The recommendations in the report by Jonathan Hall KC are important in this regard, and we are taking forward a number of measures. I mentioned one in particular, a state threats tool. I will keep the House informed if there is more information. The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on details of actions that have been taken, but where there is evidence, given that it is an organisation sanctioned completely in the UK, we will take action wherever we can.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday’s Statement refers to the fact that Britain needs to be energy independent and that we need to take control of our energy bills. Will the Lord Privy Seal comment on whether His Majesty’s Government are considering increasing gas reserve capacity, which I have found is low compared to the majority of European and Scandinavian countries? In addition, is it time to increase our North Sea oil and gas exploration during the transition to our green agenda?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, because there are two aspects to the energy issue. One is the security of supply and the other is the pricing. We have seen prices increase significantly because we are not self-sufficient. We are therefore dependent on world prices and as they increase, that hits us, not just in fuel prices but in the consequential increases as well. I assure the noble Baroness that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for a number of years to come.

On gas storage, I am digging back into my memory. I think that a number of years ago we lost a fair amount of capacity in this country. I will look into that matter, and if I have anything to report, I will come back—although I may not. This shows how important our energy security is and the need to be more self-sufficient in energy. There will be more to be said on this work moving forward. At the moment, we are focused particularly on prices, but security of supply has been a long-term aim of this Government—it was in our manifesto when we were elected—and it is a crucial issue. We have had legislation about GB Energy, and it is certainly a priority of the Government.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I find it rather surprising that we have spent 40 minutes and nobody has spoken about the fact that, as we speak here, the Lebanese and the Israeli ambassadors to the United States are sitting together for the first time in 43 years. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will join me in thanking the US for practical action, in particular Secretary of State Rubio. Perhaps it is an interesting contrast to HMG and other European partners, who issue statements. In the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, he said that Hezbollah must disarm. As we know, and as has been said, Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its 1985 manifesto made its ideology clear: expel Western powers from Lebanon, destroy the State of Israel and pledge allegiance to Iran’s regime. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Hezbollah should disarm. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what the Prime Minister’s plan to disarm Hezbollah is?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right that a monumental and historic meeting is taking place as we speak, and I commend all those who took part to make it happen, because it is diplomacy. That kind of discussion is not easy; it is very difficult, and there is a lot of history in those discussions, but even to start talking about having talks is a major step forward. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and that is a commitment he has. I do not think he feels he can do it alone. It is one of those issues where it is almost another coalition of the willing to bring countries together to put pressure on Hezbollah and those who would support or fund it. He is absolutely clear on this, and I think the whole House would agree with him that, through discussions, talks and whatever actions are necessary, we should ensure it disarms. Any organisation that declares the annihilation, the ending, of the State of Israel is not an organisation that we would give any support to whatever.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to enter into my normal attacks on the Opposition Front Bench, because at times of international conflict, and this conflict could spread well beyond the Middle East, it is very important that we have cross-party agreement. I hope the Leader of the Opposition recognises that. Does my noble friend agree that resolution of these kinds of conflicts, all of them, can be achieved only by diplomacy and negotiation and not by military means?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

To a large extent, I agree with my noble friend. Unless we have diplomacy and political engagement, we are not going to see a conclusion, but alongside that, we need logistical support and a military engagement for surveillance and intelligence, for example. But my noble friend is absolutely right that we do not resolve conflicts by more wars. We resolve conflicts by de-escalating wars and sensible, adult negotiations and diplomacy.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To resolve that this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Simon Peter Burton from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Simon Peter Burton has executed the important duties of his office.

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

My Lords, on 24 July last year, I informed the House that Simon Burton had announced his intention of retiring from the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April this year. In November, I announced that Chloe Mawson would become his successor. I indicated at the time that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Simon, and I am pleased to do so today.

The position of the Clerk of the Parliaments has a long and proud history. I know that Simon felt privileged to be in post as the 20th holder of that office on the 200th anniversary of the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824—although in 1824 the role was very different from that of today.

Since Simon joined your Lordships’ House in January 1988, over 38 years ago, he has been dedicated in every role he has held. On leaving university, having applied for the Civil Service Fast Stream, his career plans changed when he was sent information about work in the House of Lords. From then on, he was hooked. He started in the Committee Office, eventually becoming the first clerk of our important Constitution Committee and setting up the delegated legislation committees, which have become central to the work of this House.

Between 1986 and 1999, Simon took on the position of private secretary to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip—no easy task, I can tell you. That is a key role in working with the leadership to manage the business and work of the House. It was obviously a time of significant change and, as some noble Lords will recall, not without controversy on constitutional issues affecting your Lordships’ House. Lord Carter, the then Government Chief Whip, praised Simon’s

“tireless, expert and dexterous work in facilitating the usual channels”—[Official Report, 30/7/1999; col. 1827.]

over those three years.

In many ways, those first 11 years perhaps set the tone for Simon’s career. There is no doubt that he has huge respect and admiration for the work of this House. Those qualities have helped steer us through political changes, internal changes, huge challenges, and nationally significant and emotional events. On becoming the senior officer of the House as the Clerk of the Parliaments, his commitment to managing that change has been more important than ever. With Covid, we had the transition to remote working, then the easing back to hybrid and then to a physical House. So many of the conventional wisdoms about how we work had been challenged and needed to be managed. Of course, despite being involved with the huge challenges of the R&R project, it was never anticipated that the joint responsibility would be bestowed on the Clerk of the Parliaments, but Simon fulfilled that additional role with his usual diligence.

Of course, not all change is universally welcomed. Some may recall that there was a time when our Table Clerk seating arrangements involved a hard, backless bench. Simon introduced the radical move to bring in individual ergonomic chairs. A “Yes Minister” sketch might have described this as a courageous move.

During Simon’s tenure, we had the parting of Her late Majesty the Queen and the accession of King Charles, which was an emotional time for the nation and this House. Although Simon was in office for just one general election, he has worked with three Lord Speakers and seven group leaders, including three Leaders of the House.

The role of the Clerk of the Parliaments is not just about leadership of the House and managing business but about the whole House, Members and staff. Simon’s personal commitment to junior colleagues to ensure they felt valued in their work and in their careers has been greatly appreciated. In many ways, Simon started his career here in the same way as when he retired, and he retires while still maintaining that professionalism, commitment, dedication and affection for the House with which he started. On behalf of the whole House, we thank him.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Lord Privy Seal in her elegant tribute to Simon Burton, our departing Clerk of the Parliaments. We are all sad to see Simon go. As the noble Baroness said, he joined the House in 1988. I checked: there are now barely two dozen Peers who were here when the young, fresh-faced Simon first appeared. I say “young” deliberately as, whatever winds may blow, he is still as fresh-faced and cheerful in his mien as ever he was in 1988.

The House values its clerks and I hope they all know that. We value that unique, essential career and all the associated skills, of which Simon embodied so many. We value experience and loyalty such as Simon has exemplified, not just to us, the Peers, but to all those in our exceptional staff whom he has led with care and dedication. As the noble Baroness said, many management changes have been effected in his time, and I know the pride that Simon takes in having confronted outdated behaviours and promoted a more diverse and inclusive environment for all.

The noble Baroness the Leader referred to the many and varied roles that Simon has held. I again pick out the fact he was the first to clerk one of our most important committees, that on the constitution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will refer to his long service in EU scrutiny—from looking at some of the current press releases, maybe we will need those skills again.

Among the many changes in which Simon was involved were the creation of the Legislation Office, to which the noble Baroness referred, which was important, and the transformation of the digital services of the House of Lords. I first met Simon in 1997 when I became private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, the present Marquess of Salisbury. There was not actually much digital then: we used to have to staple the Whip by hand and send it out by post. I reflect sometimes that, with today’s postal service, it would have been a wonder if the House had ever been quorate in the 1990s.

Simon was then seconded to the Cabinet Office as private secretary to the Leader of the House. Those were challenging times, as the noble Baroness said, with the change of Government after 18 years and the sweeping manifesto proposals to remove hundreds of Members of your Lordships’ House. It sounds quite familiar, perhaps.

He and I, in those difficult circumstances, found ourselves harnessed together as the operative elements of the usual channels. It was with Simon that I learned many of those useful and mysterious arts, which I have not entirely forgotten, which can sometimes bring us frustration but which should always work for peace across this House.

Simon was always the most congenial of colleagues then and is today. The office of Clerk of the Parliaments is a great one, with immense responsibilities, as our Leader has told us. Simon found himself in partnership with colleagues in the other place taking much of the brunt—among other things—of the huge trials of R&R, which he could never have expected when taking the Civil Service exams all those years ago. I know that it was a great satisfaction for him to see costed proposals finally laid before both Houses shortly before the end of his term.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 26th 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 Tuesday 14 April to enable the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill and Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider that it is more appropriate for section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 to be repealed than amended in the manner proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D.

Before starting on the debate on each Motion before the House, I thought it would be helpful to set the debate in context and provide an update on discussions and progress since we last debated the Bill. During our 41 hours of debate in Committee and on Report, it was clear that, when dealing with this first immediate step of Lords reform, the House was keen to make progress more quickly on the issues of retirement and participation. Indeed, I think I am correct in saying that there were more amendments and more hours of debate on these issues that were not in the Bill than the issues that were in the Bill.

As Leader of the House, I listened carefully and committed to establishing a cross-party Select Committee to establish these issues and report back to government. That Retirement and Participation Committee is now firmly established and is actively considering how to implement our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement. I understand that the committee has received a considerable amount of interest and input from noble Lords across the House, as was intended.

If noble Lords are worried about progress on this issue, then fear not. As I have discovered, the House has been able to take steps on this issue in the past. In 1669, Members who failed to attend were fined £40 a day. That is just over £7,500 in today’s money. In 1820, a fine of £100 a day—nearly £8,500 in today’s money—was levied for non-attendance at Queen Caroline’s trial. In 1679, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to take non- attending Peers into custody and bring them to Westminster.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Despite such support from around the House, I did not recommend those precedents to the committee. In all seriousness, this is an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, take action and show that we can lead reforms rather than resist them. We look forward to receiving the committee’s findings in the coming months.

Turning to the Bill, there were four substantive amendments passed by this House and reviewed by the other place. I was pleased that they agreed with the amendments on the powers of attorney to allow for dignified retirement in certain specific circumstances. I welcome the work that took place across the House to deliver this small but important reform. These amendments demonstrate how we as a House can come together to bring about change. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has already considered and agreed the draft Standing Orders, which will be presented to the House for approval so that they can take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

A further amendment stated that all Lords Ministers should be paid a ministerial salary and prohibited future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of this House. The Government rejected this amendment as it was not relevant to the Bill. Although it raised an important principle, it did not deliver the change needed. The Government nevertheless believe that it is right that Ministers be paid for the job they are doing. For some years, the practice of appointing Ministers without a salary, particularly to the Lords, has grown, reaching a peak in 2023 of 13 unpaid Lords Ministers out of 30. Being a Lords Minister is a tough job, as well as being an absolute privilege. Lords Ministers have the responsibility of their individual portfolios, but they also fulfil their duty to this House by answering questions, managing legislation and speaking in debates on any and all issues affecting their department.

Lords Ministers’ work is impressive. I know that past Leaders of the House have also raised the issue of unpaid Ministers when they have been in government. I am pleased to report to the House that this Government introduced the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill last week in the House of Commons to increase the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid under law from 109 to 120, reflecting the average size of government since 2010. The cap on the number of Commons Ministers will not be changed and remains at 95, thus ensuring a minimum of 25 paid Ministers in this House. Of course, the allocation of ministerial salaries is ultimately at the discretion of the Prime Minister. This is a significantly better position for this House, recognising the important work of our Ministers. Given the support for that amendment on Report, I hope that that Bill will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. As a result, I ask that tonight we reject this amendment as being unnecessary.

Further amendments from this House provided for all the existing hereditary Peers to remain, as a matter of right, and to continue to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. Those amendments would allow existing hereditary Peers to remain for decades to come. The amendment on this issue, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was extensively debated in the other place. However, the level of support for these amendments, including from the Official Opposition, was notably limited in both debates and in the vote. Only 77 MPs voted to keep these amendments in the Bill, and this was decisively rejected by a margin of 259.

The Government are, and always have been, committed to removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as was stated in our manifesto. This has never been about the contribution of individuals; it is about the underlying principle, agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago, that no one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title. Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary Peers remain while meaningful reform has stagnated. We have a duty to find a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I much admired the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I must say that I did not agree with him. He spoke with his wonderful customary elegance and idiosyncrasy, but I did not agree with him when he criticised the nature of the deal that has been done. This House should thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this together and getting on with it. Nevertheless, it is a sad moment, and anyone with a sense of history would have to feel that.

Before we gathered for this debate, I walked down the Royal Gallery and looked at the plaques for noble Lords and their heirs who were killed in the two World Wars. I noticed that I was reading names all of which are represented in this House and very shortly will not be: Ponsonby, on both sides of this House; Stonor—this is the family name, not the title; Vane; Wellington; Berry; Colville; Goschen; Trenchard; and, of course, Wedgwood Benn. That is a small reminder of something which is very valuable about this House, which is continuity, and from continuity comes a certain sort of wisdom.

I have a little theory about your Lordships’ House. Once you feel you lack legitimacy, or your legitimacy is in question, you behave a bit better because you are a little doubtful about whether you should be there and so are on your best behaviour. I think the House of Lords has been better since 1911, and better since 1958, than when it really was powerful, because it feels that it needs to be careful. Over those years since 1958, a very good balance was struck between the hereditaries and the life Peers. That meant that ill feeling against the House of Lords was incredibly rare in the second half of the 20th century—it was hardly an issue at all. It is rather noticeable that, since the Blair reforms of 1999, the reputation of this House has become more and more contested, and people have got crosser and crosser.

This presents a challenge to us. The danger is that, rather than recovering legitimacy in the public mind by what is happening, we are actually hollowed out in people’s minds—we have some trappings but are not the real thing and are not something else. I was walking down into the Peers’ entrance the other day and noticed no fewer than 10 of those red boxes containing Letters Patent, which seemed quite a lot. I am sure they are all most welcome additions to your Lordships’ House, but it reminded me of the responsibility. People are going to go on saying, “Why are you here? What right have you to be here?” I hope that we will have an answer.

We can learn from the hereditary Peers at least two important things. One is that we must maintain courtesy in our dealings, and the other is that concern for the public good is the big motivator. The prevailing tendency after this will be that the spirit of party becomes stronger and the public spirit becomes weaker. It is very much our duty to make sure that does not happen.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinoull, for their warm reception for the way forward. I am also grateful to the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches—

[Noble Lords]

Newby!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I know; I was just thinking that he is no longer their leader. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I—and all of us—have sat through many hours of debate. Somebody in my office at one point calculated that Apollo 11 got to the moon and back quicker than we conducted our deliberations on this issue. But it has been worth it, and it is good that we had those debates.

I will pick up on a few things. I think we all would want to send our best wishes to my noble friend Lord Grocott. He was tenacious in pursuing a particular course for the House to go down: the ending of the by-elections, which caused considerable amusement when he would explain them. I think that very few, other than noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, think that an election with an electorate of three is very democratic. My noble friend Lord Grocott pursued that with charm and intelligence, and it was a shame he was not successful with the Bills he took forward. We send him our best wishes.

I cannot agree with comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the hereditary principle in this House, but his comments and his campaign on the right of succession are important; that has to be maintained. I was struck by how complicated this is when I looked at it at his behest. But I say to him that it is not seven weeks’ notice; it is actually probably 25 years’ notice. The principle of the hereditary place in this House was debated and agreed 25 years ago, but interim measures were in place and they have now come to an end.

I am grateful for the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moore. We are here to be useful to the country and to government in how we debate, but wisdom is very important in this House, and I have to say to him that wisdom is not hereditary. How we conduct ourselves, though, is something we should be aware of at all times, and I totally agree that the only reason for our being here is the public good. I have confidence in life Peers also conducting themselves in that way.

Comments were made about the Select Committee. I am a great believer in incremental change: we make a step, another step and another step forward, and we make progress in that way. But there is an opportunity for this House to decide how it wants to take change and reform forward. We can embrace that and show that we can lead on change, or we can decide that we always want to resist change. For this House to lead is a better way forward, and I hope that that committee will establish that principle.

This is historic legislation—I accept the comments made by noble Lords—and we should feel the moment of that. But we should also recognise that, with any change, there is not just a principle: Members of this House are departing. Many of them have given great service to this House and have been dedicated to their work—I would not want that to go unsaid today. They should be thanked for their work and their service, and they go with our thanks and appreciation. Whatever differences we have had over the passage of this legislation, I think the whole House can come together and agree on that.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider that the provision made by the Amendment is inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Commons consider that a person on whom a life peerage is conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 should participate in the work of the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 1 to which the Commons disagrees.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That, in the event that the Bill has been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 17 March to allow the Finance (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

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.