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.

Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that

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

Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that

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

but this week he said that:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Walney (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

Standards in Public Life

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

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

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

I asked the noble Baroness:

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


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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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