Standards in Public Life

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

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

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

I asked the noble Baroness:

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


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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those are important questions. I do not have the answers for the noble Baroness. I have seen the press reports that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom I worked very closely with, has asked for the information. I do not know what trawl was done. I do not know at this stage what the former Prime Minister asked for and whether the Prime Minister was informed, but I will find out.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

China and Japan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Millions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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


That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.

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

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

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

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

The same for us with you, Jim.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

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

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

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

Motion agreed.

Election of Lord Speaker

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

My Lords, after the Leader of the House has spoken, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is taking part remotely.

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

My Lords, before other noble Lords contribute, I thought it would assist the House if I said a few words about the procedure and timings for this debate and the Government’s position.

Turning first to procedure, I remind colleagues that this debate should be focused on the narrow subject of the Motion—that is, the time available to debate the Bill. The purpose of the Motion before us is to allow the House to express a view on the time needed. It is not an opportunity to reopen and continue debate on the substance of the Bill and what it does and does not do. So far, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have had two days of Second Reading and many hours of Committee, and there are a further 10 Fridays scheduled for debate. I would also urge noble Lords not to repeat arguments and to keep comments brief so that this debate can conclude in good time.

Secondly, on timings, colleagues will be mindful that the House is due to sit again at 10 am tomorrow morning further to consider amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords will need to come to a decision this evening on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In light of tomorrow’s sitting time, I hope that the House will not sit too late. If necessary, the Chief Whip or I may return to the Dispatch Box to advise colleagues if it looks as if proceedings are not coming to a timely conclusion.

On the Government’s position on the Bill, as we have said before, the Government are neutral on this issue. This is not a Government Bill but a Private Member’s Bill. Noble Lords are considering whether, in light of the additional Fridays already provided, additional time beyond the usual sitting Friday times should be made available. I know that the House is interested in how the Government will respond to this question if the Motion is passed. I hope that noble Lords will also understand that I am not going to give any commitments at this stage. We will listen to the debate and, if the Motion is agreed, to the views of the House.

If the Motion is agreed, we will have early discussions with colleagues in the usual channels, the House authorities and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the next steps. In considering those next steps, I am clear that the Bill should not take away time available for government legislation. I am sure that we are all very mindful of the impact on the staff of the House and the Members involved in discussions and debates on the Bill. I hope that this is helpful, prior to the consideration of this specific debate on the timings of the discussions to take place.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot be present in person today because of the snow and the increased risk of fracture should I slip. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak remotely and briefly on the Motion before us. The Motion implies that, despite our already having been generous with our time to an unprecedented degree, as the allocation of so many Fridays between now and 24 April demonstrates, it would somehow be unreasonable not to allocate yet more time.

I suggest that the Motion overlooks the reason why we have had to spend so much time to date considering amendments, for surely, as with any Bill, we can only ever work with what we have been given—in this case, by the other place. The volume of amendments and the time taken to consider them therefore reflect the quality, or lack thereof, of the Bill that was sent to us.

I wonder if we really appreciate the deep gratitude of those who, unlike us, are not privileged, perhaps because they feel vulnerable because of disability or old age, and do not have a voice, so depend on us to consider their concerns. It is surely to our credit that that is exactly what we are doing. We should surely be heartened by how much it is appreciated that we take our duty to scrutinise so seriously. We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament’s revising Chamber.

In conclusion, I am reminded of a wonderfully wise Scottish saying from the 16th century, which I believe this Bill shows has stood the test of time: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Our procedures are being followed appropriately and reasonably. If any Bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, but whether yet more time could transform it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I suggest that noble Lords do not interrupt other noble Lords when they are speaking.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

I do not back away from the phrase “heavily criticised”. I cannot believe that anybody in this House who has at least absorbed some of the media coverage of these debates has not accepted that there has been no general agreement about the positions that have been taken, and more importantly, about the way in which some of those positions have been argued. There are, of course, enormous divisions of opinion, as there have always been, but in this House, they have been—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Before the noble and learned Lord makes his decision whether to press his Motion, I simply wanted to ask the Leader of the House whether, if this Motion is passed, she believes that a new form of procedure has then been created by this House. It will no longer really be a Private Member’s Bill. We will have a situation where, as a Back-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord will have demonstrated that it is possible to take control of the scheduling of business in this House. As there have been a lot of very positive contributions both from the noble and the learned Lord and from others in response to this Motion and a desire for this House to change the way in which it is dealing with this Bill, would it be better for him to withdraw the Motion rather than create a new situation?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks me to respond. I do not know if she was here at the beginning, when I first commented, but I was very clear that the House will be making a decision on what it thinks. If the House makes a decision that it wishes to have extra time, then it will be a matter for discussion in the usual channels to see if that is available. That is not a new procedure. I was also very clear that it is not open to the Government to provide government time for this Bill; this is a Private Member’s Bill. But the usual channels, both government and opposition, and all parties, will listen to what the House has to say and reflect on that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with every single word the Leader said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Retirement and Participation Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That: (1) It is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on— (a) a retirement age, and (b) a participation requirement, for members of the House of Lords. (2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on— (a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning, (b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and (c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate. (3) The Committee do report by 31 July 2026.

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

My Lords, in July I informed the House of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the Government’s manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the hereditary Peers Bill and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door, and to those of other noble Lords, with some constructive—and at times creative—suggestions for reform of the House.

In listening to that debate and those representations, I have formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership of how these issues could be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I propose that a Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement and participation, and to consider what steps can be taken on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation. The Motion gives effect to the commitment I made to your Lordships’ House, and I am pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels. I hope that this is self-explanatory, but I would like to stress three points that may be helpful.

First, the committee is time-limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate and since, Lords reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly. I have therefore sought to give the committee a tight but realistic timeline for its work.

Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of this House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.

Thirdly, the Motion specifically asks the committee to look at non-legislative solutions, as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion for a lengthy intervention, but I would like to make it clear to the House that this has been discussed in usual channels, as the Leader said. These are matters that potentially touch upon hundreds of our Members, and the consensual and pragmatic approach that she has spoken about is one that will commend itself to the House generally. The Opposition will give full support to the Select Committee in its work.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sure that there is much more to say, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that the usual channels across the House have conducted these discussions. I do not suppose that we will get everybody agreeing with everything all the time, but if there is a willingness to make progress, we can do so, and I am grateful for the support on that.

Motion agreed.

G20 and Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I too welcome the Statement. On Ukraine, the Leader knows of our continuing support of the Government’s efforts. I know that our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party support in both Houses—other than some weakness from one party, so perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. However, all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent my Benches from pressing the Government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas—indeed, there is a duty to do so. We have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of the conflict.

It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war economy and a real focus on ensuring that loopholes are closed and sanctions are not circumvented. It is why we make the case as strong as we can that Russian assets, frozen for some time, need to be fully utilised after seizure, for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin’s regime, so we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told, on a number of occasions, that we can act only as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity, so I hope the Leader can update us on when we will be able to see concrete action.

Regarding the current developments with the US, it is becoming what I might call yo-yo diplomacy; it is quite hard to grasp the White House’s intent at any given time. Russia’s response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners—that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans—is directed exclusively at Trump himself. We support the Prime Minister in his efforts. We should not need to say this, but we have to: the future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide. Anything else is appeasement.

Ursula von der Leyen was right to say that a settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve-up, with the White House as the other party. Our Government are doing their best with the coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case in our support for Ukraine, and we back up the Government 100%.

The two lines on Sudan in the Statement are welcome but insufficient. The world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communiqué. That is unacceptable. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK as the UN penholder. Last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those we have witnessed in El Fasher; they could be in El Obeid and Tawila. I hope that the Leader can update the House on what concrete actions we, as the UN penholder, are taking. We need to spend every hour securing a country-wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no-drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, which cynically says it supports peace, and the SAF and NCP, which have ridiculed it.

Last week I called for the Prime Minister’s direct involvement with Heads of State. I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communiqué and his Statement indicate. If the Leader can update me, I will be very grateful.

Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the first presidency of the G20 in the coming year, for the first time since 2009. This is most welcome. However, I hope that, when it comes, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity. I have reread the UK’s 2009 G20 communiqué and I was heartened that we had inserted, in paragraph 26, that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our ODA pledges. The Budget today confirms what many of us feared: that the Government will miss the ODA target for every year of their Administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of ODA in 50 years, since ODA statistics were calculated. The 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration of the fear that, on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the UK Government are making us smaller on the international stage.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord True, thanked me for repeating the Statement but I did not repeat it because I was sure that noble Lords had read it.

Comments from both noble Lords indicate the importance of unity in this House and across Parliament and parties, and the strong message that sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine. Lots of comments have been made about us reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, which are comments we have all made time and again, and will continue to do so. If anything, as time moves on, our resolve is even stronger because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and that cannot be repeated often enough.

However, it is not just about our support for Ukraine. We send a very strong message that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is hard to talk about winning or losing a war in which so many on both sides have died and suffered, but if Russia was to succeed, our security, and that of other countries across Europe, is compromised. Our fight is also the fight of the Ukrainian people, and we work together.

The Prime Minister met the coalition of the willing in London, and they met virtually yesterday; 36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing and that is a very strong message to Russia and Ukraine about the strength of feeling for the just and lasting peace that is required. The noble Lord, Lord True, also made the point that it is no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution and to have to come back to this point two, three or even 10 years’ later. It has to be something that can last.

Noble Lords asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a lot of this is around the capability, co-ordination and command structure across the coalition. That is important; it is not just saying, “We have capability—it is there to help you”. It is working out how that works in practice, and that is what the coalition is about. The noble Lord asked about funding; I thought for one moment he was going to divert into a party-political rant about the Budget. I think today’s point is more sombre and serious; we can have that when we have our debate on the Budget. He knows, as we have said time and again, that the strategic defence review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding.

Both noble Lords asked for updates on the plan. If I understood correctly—I apologise if I am wrong—the noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should rule out the plan completely. It is for the Ukrainians to comment on what is there. There are clearly parts of the 28-point plan that were totally unacceptable and could not be accepted by Ukraine. If it says they cannot be accepted, we support it. It is right that it makes that decision. However, there are other points within the plan that it thinks it can work with and discuss further with the Americans. It is very fast-moving.

I think that during the Statement yesterday, one MP said, “Oh, there’s a deal been done. Can we try to confirm that?” No, the deal has not been done. There are ongoing discussions, and it is important that we give the Ukrainians every support we can in having those discussions on what they need. But we would never move away from supporting them, or from them deciding on their sovereignty. That is one of the most important things.

I cannot give a running commentary on where this has got to: it would be wrong to do so. We all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days, perhaps longer. But we have to put our support, our faith and our trust in the Ukrainians, because of the suffering they have endured. The Russian community has suffered as well, yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with President Putin. It is important we recognise that, and say to both Russia and Ukraine that that is where the responsibility and the liability lies.

I will try to answer the points that were made. Questions were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored, looking at the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets. Where we are coming from is that, while this war continues, sanctions continue, and we will continue to freeze assets. We are working closely with the EU Commission and our G7 counterparts to make progress.

The noble Lord, Lord True, has asked me about this before, and I cannot give him any more updates. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we have got to on that. I think that we are making progress on how assets can be used, but he will understand that the impact of that will come if we work together to get to that point. That is part of the discussions that are constantly under review to make sure we can move forward.

As for Sudan, I understand that it was extensively discussed, although that probably is not reflected in the Statement at all. The suffering there is probably the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. It is hard to imagine, in so much of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through, and the lack of hope people must have. We fully support the work of the Quad in trying to make progress to reach some kind of agreement to end the suffering there, and the famine that ensues as well. That was extensively discussed, and was, I think, very much in the forefront of minds there.

The noble Lord also asked about international aid and assistance—ODA. May I say to him that in 2009 we had had 12 years of a Labour Government? The economy was in a better place, and the world was in a different place as well, so it does not surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009. Our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to how things were, remains. Our commitment has not ended, but that is not going to happen as quickly as I know he would like, or as quickly as others would like as well.

The noble Lord also asked for more information about the coalition of the willing. I would say that this is one of the most significant moves by the Government —to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are looking at the full range of European military capabilities. President Zelensky, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be in no doubt that he has not just our sympathy and support but our total backing, and that that is not going to fail him.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the key part he has played in the coalition of the willing. I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing—but I wonder whether I could ask my noble friend a question. Could she say a bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It will cost a lot of money, but I think it is important that we get our policies in place, so that a quick reconstruction of that country can be brought into being.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.

On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. I fully agree with everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Although I am in an opposition party, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Prime Minister has been doing a splendid job on the external front, particularly in co-leading the coalition of the willing. I will not say anything about his domestic travails, as I do not want to spoil the harmony. He has been extremely stalwart. I heard what the Minister said, and I think it does come through that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. He is quite right.

It has been heartening, in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European Parliaments in the last few months. I recall meeting Finnish colleagues and people from the French Senate, yesterday, and today, some of the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. That we are able to say, to note and to express the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is obviously welcome to them, and it is gratifying to be able to express that.

May I press the Minister about the use of the frozen Russian assets? I realise that discussions are ongoing, but could she give us any hint of where the current sticking point is? It is reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees. I may be out of date, but I think Belgium wants guarantees about its position, because most of these assets are located—in so far as anything is located anywhere these days—in Belgium. But is it that? Is it legal? Is it political? Can she give us any kind of time horizon? People are very impatient, and want to see these assets used for the benefit of Ukraine.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She talks about domestic travails, but this is nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, and I would not want to trivialise that in any way. As she said, it is important that, across all Parliaments in different countries, it is not just the politicians and the representatives; it goes down to the people of this country. Some friends of mine feel that their lives have been enriched by being hosts to a Ukrainian family, who left Ukraine and want to return when they can. Because the politicians have been united, we have been able to lead our country on that as well.

The noble Baroness asked for further information on where the sticking point is. I cannot go into those discussions, and I think that she will understand why. Let me just say that we will ensure that everything we do on this—we want to make progress as quickly as we can—will be in line with international law and be financially and legally responsible. She will know— I am sure she has been involved in similar discussions before—that it is the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is why it is important to keep on pressing the point in order to get some progress as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right: we can focus on using the interest on those assets, but we have to look further than that for the long-term future of Ukraine.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, one of the principles that we apply in many debates is that we should not talk about people without them being present. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to resist the carve-up of an independent country by two major powers? That means that we have to put pressure on the United States to see this not just as an object of interest but as something that has to involve the Ukrainians at every step.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would hope that I have already been completely clear on that point. These are matters for Ukraine; it is not for other countries to seek to divide, or make decisions on behalf of, a sovereign country. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it has our support and backing in making its own decisions and having its own negotiations.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to the Statement. I will press a her little on how the arrangements for the coalition of the willing will work. The noble Baroness mentioned the three Cs —capability, co-ordination and command structure—but can she say more about how the UK will be involved in determining how its support, potential peacekeeping forces and other resources may be used?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is not much more I can say because these discussions are continually ongoing. The Prime Minister, when he answered questions on the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday, made clear the huge amount of ongoing military work and how that will operate in practice. These are operational matters that will have to be worked through with all the other countries, to see what part they can play. These are military plans that will be put into effect when they are needed.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the chance to discuss the Statement. This is an extremely difficult time for Ukraine—heaven knows that what they have had to live through over the past three and a half years has been difficult enough. It is also a test for the coalition of the willing. I join my noble friend Lord Dubs in paying tribute to the work that the Prime Minister has done in this regard. As this potential peace process unfolds, at what stage does my noble friend the Leader of the House understand it is envisaged that Russia and President Putin would be welcomed back into the G7, which would become the G8 again? That might be a difficult part of the process.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think my noble friend is getting a little ahead of where discussions are at the moment. While these discussions are ongoing, the most I can say is that our support for Ukraine remains absolutely ironclad—there is no dispute or ambiguity about that. The person responsible for the illegal invasion of Ukraine is Putin; the responsibility cannot be laid at any place other than his door. He can deliver peace immediately just by withdrawing from Ukraine. Until these matters are resolved, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as pro bono counsel for Ukraine in international legal proceedings. I too pay tribute to the Government for their work and support for Ukraine. I would like some clarity on point 9 of the European counterproposal, which states:

“NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland”.


We do not want Russia to read this as NATO proposing that NATO fighter jets will not be stationed in places that might be seen as more controversial to the north-east of Poland, such as the Baltic states or Finland. We must be particularly careful because the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany contained a provision that said that there would not be foreign troops in what was then East Germany. Russia maintains, to date, that by that provision we had agreed not to station or deploy NATO troops east of the Oder-Neisse. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that NATO will continue to deploy fighter jets in the Baltic states or in Finland, if those countries so wish?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a decision for NATO to take, but I see no change in the current arrangements. The noble Lord mentioned the plan. The ongoing discussions have not yet been agreed, and when they are, the plan will become clearer. No change has been made to NATO’s current position, and the discussions are ongoing.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I too join the chorus congratulating the Prime Minister on what he has done. The coalition of the willing—although the phrase has an echo of George Bush Jr—started with three nations and its membership is now up to 36. That is not a simple achievement. The Leader of the House has done something wonderful, and I thank her too for answering our questions. If I were Ukrainian, I would feel that, in 1994, we gave up our nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, but when one of them went into Crimea, the other two did nothing. It requires a lot of belief that, despite Ukrainians having been betrayed before, we are now trying to fix it. Therefore, my thoughts are those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds: are we going to stop and resist whatever happens, so that Ukraine will not be betrayed again? Having given up its weapons, we are now demanding that the country gives up bits of its land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear I am in danger of repeating myself, but if it needs restating, I will do so. We have been absolutely clear that decisions on sovereignty are a matter for Ukraine. Clearly, there are points in the first iteration of President Trump’s 28-point plan that are unacceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine has asked for support with ongoing negotiations. The Prime Minister regularly talks to President Zelensky, and there is no doubt that the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition of the willing—which, as the noble and right reverend Lord said, is now made up of 36 nations—is behind Ukraine. On the one hand, there is the absolute moral principle about the sovereignty of a nation; on the other, there is the recognition that, if Russia were to get its way with Ukraine, we do not know where we would be next. It is a matter of security for the UK and for Europe. I do not know how much more I can emphasise this: it is for Ukraine to make decisions for its own sovereignty, and we will support Ukraine.

Sitting suspended.