Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne got to the nub of the question when he asked what all this is for. The answer, at least in part, is as a result of a certain squeamishness. Cognitive decay is cruel and age, as we all know, affects all of us unequally. This retirement proposal is not just about reducing the numbers in this House. At its heart, it seeks to remove those who might, in the colourful words of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, have “lost their marbles”. A retirement age of 80 is really a measure to avoid a hard conversation.

While I approve of avoiding awkward conversations, the cost is too high. The loss of expertise and experience would gravely damage the work of this House. Therefore, would a capacity test not be a better measure and allow us to avoid an arbitrary deadline at the age of 80? Consideration of that has been hinted at in other speeches from noble Lords this evening. No doubt such a test of capacity—following the measures that were permitted by this House to be added to the hereditary peers Act—could be conducted with humanity and kindness by the House authorities and, dare I say it, by the Whips. This is an answer that warrants careful consideration.

One last point relates to a bugbear of mine. There can be no such thing as a “Peer emeritus”. We have no monopoly on the title “Lord”. Since at least the Acts of Union of 1707 there have been two categories of Peers: parliamentary and non-parliamentary. From 1707 to 1963, the Scottish Peerage elected 16 from among themselves to attend this House. The rest of those Scottish Peers were non-parliamentary. Similarly, from 1801, only 28 of the Irish peerage were sent here to serve in this House. The rest were non-parliamentary Peers. As a result of the iniquitous legislation passed by the Government, all hereditary Peers are now non-parliamentary Peers, unless they have the good fortune also to hold a life peerage.

That category of non-parliamentary Peers now includes all life Peers who have retired from this House under the provisions of the 2014 Act. I can therefore reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the Lord Privy Seal is entirely right—as is often the case—when she says that those who are not Members of this House are entitled to vote and they are still entitled to use the title that they have been given by the Crown in accordance with their Letters Patent, as is right and proper. This has been the case for many centuries, especially if they are still on the Roll of the Peerage.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I think I might be correct, but I am sure the noble Lord will correct me if not. The Scottish Lords of Parliament, who were part of those elected to serve after the Acts of Union, had themselves to be re-elected at the start of each new Parliament. They did not have a lifetime right to serve in Parliament, as the noble Lord suggested.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and thank him. There is a curious quirk that the Irish elected Peers were elected for life, not just for the Parliament. That is the joy of our glorious constitution.

It is right that this House is considering the issue of whether a Member should be compelled to carry on serving once they are past their prime, if I might put it like that. The answer is not a hard age bar; the answer is more humane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who spoke in the gap. She knows that I have the highest admiration for the work she does, and the utmost affection for her. She has been and continues to be an outstanding ambassador for Parliament as a whole, not just for this House, especially in the work she does in Latin America. I am in awe of the service that she has given.

Notwithstanding that this is a government manifesto commitment, these Benches have decided that this is now a House issue. Thus, if it comes to a point where we will be making decisions on a way forward, each of my colleagues will vote on their own judgment rather than there being a whipped line. There is, however, widespread support among my colleagues for the work that my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lady Suttie have done on the committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—not only for the conclusions that the committee has reached but the means by which it has done so and the consensus it has sought. My noble friend Lady Parminter spoke succinctly and clearly right the beginning of this debate, a number of hours ago, and I agree with every word she said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very politely pre-butted a speech I was not intending to make. Our country’s legislatures should be democratically chosen, and we on these Benches believe, as others have mentioned in the debate, that there should be an opportunity for this House to be fundamentally reformed.

In this debate about these proposals, some—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and others—have asked what the problem is that we are seeking to solve. Indeed, they were asking what the problem is of this House. A number of years ago, the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election had come to that conclusion and answered the noble Lord’s question:

“We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence”.


Perhaps the problem that continues to burden us is that of legitimacy and public confidence. We have heard of the need—and I agree with it—for a second Chamber to be efficient. Many made the case for reform; others, however, said it would be wholly wrong to break the link between a life peerage and a lifetime right to sit in this House.

As with most debates about our House, as we have had today, there is rarely much that is new. The House previously passed, after seven days of debate, a resolution which stated the following:

“That a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is necessary to the well-being of the State and to the balance of Parliament … That such a Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords … That a necessary preliminary of such reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a Peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 21/3/1910; cols. 413-23.]


That was in 1910; the last part was almost identical to what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, was calling for in this debate today, and I agree with him.

Moving the debate on that resolution was the Earl of Rosebery from the Cross-Benches at that point in 1910. I want to quote more of what he said in introducing it, because we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord True, and others that to change the link between the peerage and the ability to sit in this House by right and not alter that, either by retirement or by participation, would be constitutionally improper and anomalous. Lord Rosebery said:

“After all, nothing can be so anomalous as the British Constitution itself. We are afraid to introduce new principles into it. But, really, when you come to analyse the Constitution itself one might be inclined to think that a little novelty might to some extent improve it”.—[Official Report, 14/3/1910; col. 165.]


It indeed is a novelty that we are seeking to improve it; 116 years later, this novelty is perhaps a little overdue.

More recently, for 50 years, some who sit in this House have served under age limits as a result of an innovation. I personally do not believe there should be reserved seats for the established Church of a nation south of the border where I live, but, as with judges, for Bishops there seems to have been a settled view that age limits are appropriate and connected to efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, the debates in the synod in 1975, which I read, were sensitive and pragmatic and came to a conclusion that retirement linked with sitting in this House was appropriate. That was 51 years ago.

Similarly, the reforms introduced by a Conservative Government in 1959 to impose age limits for senior judges were debated sensitively but pragmatically and with a degree of self-awareness. In the kindest possible way, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who indicated that we sometimes should see for ourselves the reality of how representative we are in society. In 1959, the then Conservative Government decided that for senior judges the retirement age of 75 should be put in place. Of interest in that debate, as we have heard today, it was the settled will that this was the appropriate age in that profession for those who apply the law. We are simply suggesting that we should consider it for those who make the law also. The Lord Chancellor Viscount Kilmuir in introducing the measure said:

“I would also put this point … that there is no more difficult problem in life than to judge one's own dispensability and expendability. We all find it, and some of us find that the problem gets more difficult as the years advance. But I ask your Lordships to face up to the existence of that psychological problem”.—[Official Report, 8/12/1959; cols. 125-26.]


We need to do that in this House today also. We have done it for those who apply the law and we should also do it for those who make the law.

This inevitably will mean that some valued colleagues will be retiring, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his shrewd contribution, as all of his are, asked us to consider the time when we might have to cope with life without him in this House. I personally will grieve when he leaves this House, because I am a great admirer of his. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, indicated that the family of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, might have to cope with him being with his family on retirement. We have had both sides of the argument, but I am certain that both this House and the family of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will manage to cope in both of those circumstances.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made the point that this reform should not be simply about making space, but it should fundamentally be about effectiveness and efficiency, and I agree with that. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Burns, about previous attempts for reforms about the size of this House. We have always shared that view. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the size of the Liberal Democrat Benches is now exactly what it would have been if the Burns review had been implemented in full. I am certain both noble Lords would not wish the size of our Benches in particular to be diminished for any reforms going forward. I am sure that they will agree with me with on that one.

On the issue of age, I have to confess, I was not expecting Dolly Parton to be mentioned in the debate today, but the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, did so. I was trying to think of something witty to say, but I am thinking that us working nine to five might be a bit of a stretch. Yes, okay, I will move on.

We heard about the difficult issue of how representative we are as a non-elected Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point, and I share it, that the elderly are a key part of our society and need to be represented. However, I think we should be a touch cautious about saying that the elderly in society can only be represented by the elderly in this House. We cannot persuasively make that argument unless we also argue that young people can only be represented by young people in this House. If you hold that argument, when I entered this House, I was only one of two Members of the entire House under 40, so both of us would have had to share the burden of representing 49% of the country’s population. We cannot automatically make a direct link between our age profile here and those whom we represent in society.

We must also be cautious of the argument that, if the committee’s proposals are taken forward then we will enter a constitutionally wrong type of expulsion—culls, sackings and purges have been referred to. Obviously there will be a collective view about what an appropriate level of participation would be, as well as those who would be participating in it.

The committee should be commended for doing a difficult task that has beset us for many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, indicated: what is the appropriate means by which we recognise ourselves as legislators, not a voluntary think tank? The setting of a 20% participation rate over two Sessions is reasonable. I personally believe that in future that should be the floor, not the ceiling, of what we should expect participation to be in a Parliament, because we have a great responsibility to be legislators and active participation is required.

We on these Benches will work constructively going forward. We wish to see reform and we will try to reflect the way that the committee worked constructively to try to find a way forward with the correct tone, sensitivity and a degree of pragmatism, but we will approach it as much as possible in the consensual way that the committee established. I commend it for its work and I hope to see progress.

Direction of Government

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for being here to repeat this Statement.

The new Prime Minister was in place for 42 days before meeting Parliament. That is an all-time record for a new Prime Minister and I trust it will never be equalled. So, we certainly need accountability and, having ordered his troops to vote down a debate in July, I thank the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for repenting a little and granting additional time for Back-Bench questions on the Statement today.

The Statement began with a tribute to Sir Keir Starmer. On hearing it, I was a little reminded of Brutus’s speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The Prime Minister plotted to destroy Sir Keir, not because he did not love Sir Keir but because he loved No. 10 more. Sir Keir has responded to the loyalty that he was shown and, understandably, voted with his feet. We wish him well.

This Statement was grandly entitled “Direction of the Government”. So what is it? What will be different from what was done by the Starmer Government? If she answers nothing else today, can the Minister tell us three things Sir Keir was doing which will now be dropped and three things he was not doing which will now be done? After all, she is in the Cabinet; she must know.

The Prime Minister in the Statement made a lot of things going wrong over 40 years. He blamed Brexit, among other things, and then announced a reduction of VAT on energy prices—ironically, impossible without Brexit. He said that he wanted to help the hospitality industry. Your Lordships may ask who has been pummelling that and crushing summer jobs over the last two years. It is this Labour Government in their disastrous tax policies and the unemployment Act.

The Prime Minister used another Brexit freedom to cut VAT temporarily on pubs. They are now closing at the fastest rate ever known. We might call it “last orders with Reeves and Rayner”. But then the big new idea in the Statement to help hospitality is a tourism tax—that is a funny one.

Always, always, always with the party opposite, the answer is not a spending cut but a new tax. You cannot tax your way into growth. Jim Callaghan said that in the 1970s, as the Prime Minister recalls so fondly. The Prime Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, understands that equally well now. The noble Lord seems unwilling to serve under the Prime Minister’s leadership. Perhaps he is the canary in the wealth tax coal mine. Yesterday, he criticised the “tone” of the Prime Minister’s Statement, calling it the

“last thing investors wanted to hear”.

Business has heard the message of tax and spending loud and clear. We should beware, for this is the real danger to our country, to jobs, to mortgages and to business—tax, borrowing and spending running out of control just as they did under the Labour Government in the 1970s the Prime Minister recalls so fondly.

Let us come back to the “Direction of Government”, the title of the Statement. This Government have already added £74,000 million to the tax burden in two years. Some £130,000 million is already spent every year on servicing debt: that is over £1,800 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. We have more borrowing, more nationalisation, more spending, more intervention by civil servants, more tax and more state control.

Can the Minister confirm that that is the direction of the Government? It certainly sounds like the 1970s. Can she say whether the Government’s plan is to increase borrowing or reduce it? Do they plan to increase government spending to pay for all the new initiatives that the Prime Minister has announced, or to curtail spending? Will they address the burgeoning weight of welfare spending on the necks of the working man and woman, or reduce it? Come to think of it, can the Minister tell the House of one significant reduction in welfare that she is recommending to colleagues?

The Prime Minister makes a lot of this new No. 10 North. Well, it is nice to have your office just down the road. To give him credit, I am told that the replica front door cost a thousand quid. I wish somebody had told someone in this House about our new front door. We are told that everyone must now beat their path to No. 10 North to get subsidies, get spending, get more civil servants and get the right to put up tax. If Cornwall wants a so-called “devolution deal”, it must go up to Manchester. Can the Minister say whether these deals will let regional mayors reduce tax? If this is about the direction of the Government, what is the Government’s strategy on taxation? Is it for the taxation burden to go up or fall under this Government? Can the Minister tell the House? Hard-working people up and down the country, who are already paying the highest peacetime tax burden in history and the highest taxation on property in Europe or the G7, deserve to know the Government’s intentions.

National security is the first duty of any Government. The former Defence Secretary resigned over this Government’s failure to do enough. He is now the Chancellor. So, with that following wind in her sails, can the Minister commit to the defence funding that the Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That is, 3% of GDP by 2030.

The ultimate test for any Government is whether people feel richer, freer and more prosperous. There is agreement across the House that this can be achieved only through growth. It can be achieved only through innovation and hard work by individuals and businesses. The Prime Minister admits that the cost of doing business is already too high. Yet, in the same breath, he apparently recommits himself in the Statement to the same net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs for households and businesses. Again, which is it? It cannot be both.

The direction of the Government in so many respects remains confused and unclear, but nothing would do this country more harm than the agenda of back to the high-tax, high-spending 1970s, which this Statement presages and which, in the last two days, the financial markets have ominously discerned.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, Andy Burnham is the seventh Prime Minister in the 13 years I have been a Member of this House. Under our unstable one-party government system, Prime Ministers have had an average tenure of 21 months in my time. I worked out that this is precisely the average lifespan of a domestic hamster. Of course, we wish the current Prime Minister a longer time in Downing Street than the lifespan of a hamster. We wish him well if he seeks to make changes to our country for the long-term good on social care, political reform, cutting the cost on businesses and restoring the ease of trade and travel within Europe. These Benches will work with his Ministers to meet this ambition. I wish the new Ministers who have been appointed in this House well and I thank those who left office for their service. We are also interested to see the structure, as referred to by the noble Lord, of No. 10 North. It is not north from where I live, north of the border—it is a bit more No. 10 in the middle—but I will be interested to see how the structure of government operates in reality.

It is fair to analyse the words of the Labour Prime Minister. First, I agree that there is

“a weariness in the heart of a nation”.

I agree that there is a yearning:

“For change. For national renewal”.


These Benches also agree with the Prime Minister’s call for “actions not words”. Finally, we share the need for

“the hope, the spirit, the belief in a better future”.

These sound like Andy Burnham, but they are all actually Sir Keir Starmer’s words in his first speech as Prime Minister.

The new Prime Minister’s speech on taking office, when cross-referenced with that of his predecessor, is a little like an Elgar’s variation on a theme but with a little more espressivo and emotion. Keir Starmer said that too many people no longer believe Britain would be better for their children and promised to work until they “believe again”, and Andy Burnham ended with almost exactly the same emotional destination. He said that Britain should start to “believe again” and that he wanted to “bring back hope”.

Expectations are high, but as my former Scottish Liberal colleague Russell Johnston said:

“You don’t change the taste of the whisky by changing the shape of the bottle”.


Nor are the fundamentals and the challenges facing the Government any different because of the new Prime Minister. The tasks ahead of him are enormous, and I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that we have extra time. Indeed, tomorrow we have a debate in the House where we will be exploring further what the Government’s plans are under the new Prime Minister.

Some of the Prime Minister’s statements are welcomed by these Benches, especially in the areas we have campaigned for, where hitherto action was not as rapid as we had hoped—for example, on waste dumping, championed by my noble friend Lady Sheehan in this House; on reducing the tax burden on hospitality businesses; or on securing what we hope to be real changes to the political system on donations, on clarity, on transparency and on regulation, as my noble friend Lord Pack indicated at Questions today. On the last point, we believe there need to be full cross-party talks on protecting our democratic processes—this is of vital importance—but we also need democratic reform. I would be grateful if the Leader gave an indication of what she understands the Prime Minister’s priority to be on the electoral system and democratic reform, not just on devolution.

On water reform, for example, we had been told that we would have legislation around now, but in the Makerfield by-election Andy Burnham told the Guardian that he was in favour of public ownership. He recently told the FT that he is in favour of control, not nationalisation. Can the Leader offer clarification as to what we will receive when it comes to water reform, Thames Water in particular, and when we will receive it? It is urgent. Dumping is being carried out as we speak today. Andy Burnham also told the Financial Times that he wanted to address not just the cost of living but the cost of businesses, particularly energy costs. We welcome this, but there needs to be more clarity as to what he means by it.

He said that there is a slight difference between his approach on growth and that of his predecessor. He agreed that the number one priority of government should be growth, but he said it should be “good growth”. I wondered what that means. Is good growth not investing in fossil fuels or being pragmatic on fossil fuels? Is it trade agreements where we ditch human rights clauses? Is good growth that we increase imports from poor standards in China? More clarity as to what good growth means would be helpful. For example, many people welcomed the cap on bus fares, and I understand why. That was the first announcement by Mr Burnham. It is paid for by a further cut of development assistance for clean travel in the poorest country in the world, so more clarity is needed.

On travel, we welcome the Government’s announcement on the extension of disabled travel, championed by Tom Gordon MP in the House of Commons. We welcome the concession on digital ID. In particular, we welcome the talks on social care. Sir Ed Davey took part willingly in the talks with the Prime Minister on the need to seek cross-party consensus, and I know that the Official Opposition took part in those talks as well. Can the Leader explain a little more what we may see as a result of these talks? As Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham have both said, we need action, not words, and we need reform, not talk. On care, on electoral reform and on fiscal decentralisation, these Benches will be constructive in working with the Government, but we need a lot more information about what and when on the Government’s programme.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I am not repeating the Statement today; I am answering questions. We agreed that earlier. I welcome him back to his position as Leader of the Opposition. Long may he stay in that role—I say that genuinely. I also thank him for his comments about Sir Keir Starmer. Many of us were very proud of the work in the Government he led. He took us into government from the worst defeat the Labour Party had had, and those two years in government are years of which we can be proud. We wish him well as he continues in his role of public service, however he chooses to do that.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord True, asked about the differences and the similarities. There are always differences with a change of Prime Minister, but both Prime Ministers are Labour and they share the same values. Those values guide people in different ways. The heart of what they believe in is very similar, but they will discharge that in the ways that they know best from their experiences. The noble Lord, Lord True, had lots of questions on these things, as he often does. I listened with some interest when he was talking about the 1970s. Some of us do not think the 1970s were that bad. I lived through them as a teenager—

Tributes: Lord Laming

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her marvellous tribute. Like her, I convey our sincerest sympathy to Herbert’s family and friends.

I never heard Herbert raise his voice. Perhaps he did if he ever had a recalcitrant dog, but I doubt that, because Herbert would have calmed the dog, as he calmed every situation, however difficult—and there were quite a few in his life. As the Leader said, he has left a legacy that goes far beyond anything that most of us could ever even aspire to. As she said in her notable tribute, he did outstanding service in chairing two of the most harrowing and important inquiries and reports ever undertaken in the United Kingdom, in the Climbié and the baby P cases. In his typically painstaking, ever-listening and ever-giving to others way, his work revolutionised child care. I can only underline everything that the Leader said about those reports and recommendations. They have come to define the best of modern, professional and inter-agency standards.

He was a consummate professional, though he believed, and said so, that career paths could be closed because of too tightly prescribed routes in life. Much of Herbert’s career actually happened by accident, as he acknowledged. He said:

“We are writing off a huge amount of human potential”,


telling young professionals that

“qualifications had got us through the door, but from now on it was what we did that mattered”.

He was a practical man, with an every-open ear and eye. What you did for others was what he saw.

Some of his greatest insights into the need for inter-agency co-operation came from a very varied career. He started work as a probation officer in Nottinghamshire, near Stanton Ironworks, where my parents met—something we used to joke about quite often. In probation, he went on to study mental health, becoming a psychiatric social worker, and that informed his long, magnificent service in Hertfordshire, which the Leader referred to.

I first met Herbert in No. 10, in the early 1990s, when John Major was pushing through a programme of public service reform, which was aimed at placing greater emphasis on the needs of the user, transparency of outcomes and public accountability. Herbert was made Chief Inspector of Social Services in 1991, and he remained so until 1998. He was an enormous ally in all those efforts to improve public services for users. He was always, as I found then, an inspiration to talk to and a breath of fresh air. He was not a softy. He was hard-headed but kindly-hearted, as the Leader said.

Constant learning was something he applied to himself throughout his life:

“We must … never allow ourselves to think that we know everything”,


he said in an interview late in his life. Amen to that. And how much we learned from his great service in this House, not least as the Convenor of the Cross Benches. He was uniquely considerate of others. I must place on record my personal gratitude to him, as the Leader has in her case, for his sound advice in my many roles in this place.

Perhaps I might end by quoting what was said to me earlier by a younger Conservative colleague, more than 40 years Herbert’s junior: “I do not intend to speak”, she wrote, “But I wanted to let you know of Herbert’s kindness. I turned to him privately many times, as he was so generous with his time and his wise words. I will miss him so much”. We could all say the same of this dear man, who was a giant of public service and who will go on touching the lives of people at risk for generations to come. We will all miss him.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord True, and the Leader, and their very eloquent and emotional tributes to Herbert. Herbert was Convenor of the Cross Benches when I entered this House in 2013. He was always helpful, courteous and polite. For the whole of the duration that it was my pleasure to know him, he never passed, in many of our many corridors, without an inquiry as to how I was, referring to me by my name. After an early occasion in the Chamber having come into this House, when I was characteristically verbose, I got a polite note asking me for a chat. I dutifully went along to the Convener of the Cross Benches’ office and sat down. After receiving a very kind review of what I had said, he even more kindly suggested that I needed not have said it so much and for so long. I got a taste of how he approached his professional and parliamentary life: supportive, kind and, when necessary, firm.

Business of the House

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

Currently, we have government by continuous press conference and media spin. That is not what this great House has ever believed in or should readily accept. In this unprecedented situation, the Government should answer in detail, and with details, to this part of Parliament that is sitting. I hope the noble Baroness the Leader, when she replies, will set out a reasonable programme of how she will ensure that that is done this week, including a short take-note Motion tomorrow. If not, I reserve the right to submit this Motion to the opinion of the House. That the Executive is accountable to Parliament is the most basic and dearly bought principle of a free democracy. It must never be bypassed. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will take this opportunity also to welcome the continuation in their role of the Leader and the Chief Whip.

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

Not yet.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I apologise to the Chief Whip if I have just doomed his chances in the reshuffle. Now all of his Back-Benchers are keeping a beady eye on their phones to learn his fate. I also thank on behalf of these Benches the outgoing Ministers for their service. They were open, accessible and often responsive. We thank them for their service and we wish them well. For those Ministers who will be either reappointed or newly appointed, we wish them luck in their role.

On more occasions than I can remember, the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that the House functions on the basis of a degree of respect among the usual channels. He has said it is a fundamental of how this House functions. We are a House of minorities, after all. He has reminded us on many occasions that, if the usual channels break down, the House does not function as it should.

The Chief Whip is leaving the Chamber. I think this brings a new meaning to “The Whip is off”.

Today’s Motion was not highlighted in the usual channels at all. The Government were not informed or consulted. My Benches were not. The Cross Benches were not. The usual channels were ignored. If the noble Lord considers the usual channels to be the fundamental principle of how this self-regulating House operates, why is it just today that he believes that they should be summarily ignored—not consulted, informed or written to?

On the subject of being written to, Peers across the House were this morning written to in a letter from the noble Lord condemning the Government for making announcements outside Parliament first. With a superpower level of irony, the letter was released to the press last night at 9.38 pm. When these Benches were asked by Sky News last night for a comment on the letter, my immediate reflection was to say that this could not have happened: colleagues were not written to, and I did not receive a letter, so obviously this was not the case. Sky News then pinged on X—I will happily give way if the noble Baroness wishes to correct the record.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Might I correct the noble Lord? I spoke to both the Government Chief Whip and the Lib Dem Chief Whip last night well before 9.38 pm.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Baroness is well aware that there are recognised ways that the usual channels operate. She may protest, and if she wishes to intervene again, I am happy to take it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am not protesting; I am stating a fact.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I indicated that these Benches were not consulted or written to with regard to the noble Lord. That is perfectly clear. When the press were told at 9.38 pm, when the House was still sitting, there was no convening of the usual channels to discuss the business ahead. Can the noble Baroness confirm—she can intervene on me again—whether there was any meeting of the usual channels last evening when we were still sitting?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can absolutely confirm that I discussed it with both the Government Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. We do not generally convene as a three; we speak separately and together, often.

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

My Lords, it might help the House to know that, by the time the noble Baroness spoke to the Chief Whip, the Motion had already been tabled and we had been alerted.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The usual channels were not convened, informed or written to. When we were notified that a Motion had been tabled, that is not the way that the usual channels operate our business. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm the point that the Leader indicated. Had the other Benches been informed—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Chief Whip, who is back in his place, or the Opposition Chief Whip might be able to confirm to the House whether the Motion had been tabled before the noble Baroness informed those she claims were consulted. No—there is silence. I think that confirms that matter. So, we are now debating a complaint about announcements being made outside Parliament first, which itself was an announcement made outside Parliament first.

Setting aside the nature of this for one moment, it is probably worth noting that when there were three Conservative Prime Ministers in three years—I checked Hansard—there were no debates in this House on the political priorities and legislative agenda of each Prime Minister when they took office. In 2022, when Liz Truss took office, she appointed the noble Lord, Lord True, to be Leader of this House, and there was no debate. I do not blame him for not scheduling a debate, because there was not enough time in her period of office for us to debate this fully.

[Lord True (Con)]

If it cuts short the noble Lord’s speech, which seems to be an attack on this side rather than any kind of examination of the other, in the case of Mr Johnson, he went immediately to Parliament and answered questions at great length on his programme. In the case of Liz Truss, she did Prime Minister’s Questions within two days and gave a full account to Parliament in the proper way. The same thing happened in the case of Rishi Sunak. What is different in this case—the noble Lord can tell me if it is not—is that there is no mechanism by which Mr Burnham has allowed himself to be examined by the House of Commons or to be properly accountable to Parliament.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as Hansard will show and as I indicated very clearly, there was no debate on the Government’s priorities, political or legislative, in this House, as the noble Lord is seeking that we have. It is his right not to be consistent—I understand that—but when it comes to Prime Ministers seeking to avoid scrutiny, all of us remember that it was Prime Minister Johnson who prorogued Parliament specifically to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, which was deemed illegal.

In pre-issuing the letter about the debate, I do not think the noble Lord had been consulting some of his colleagues in the Commons, because much of this Motion now seems to be a bit out of date. The Conservative-chaired Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into government announcements made outside Parliament. It reported and gave its considerations on 9 January. It said that the code was out of date, given modern media considerations, and needed clarity. In paragraph 40, it said that

“the media environment has changed significantly in recent years, and the provisions on the need to make the most important statements of government policy to Parliament first have remained substantively the same since the Code was introduced in 1997. It may well be the case that this section of the Code needs to be modernised to reflect the ‘Parliament first’ principle while also recognising that governments must seek to communicate their policies effectively to the public they serve”.

It was a Select Committee in the Commons chaired by a Conservative MP which made that recommendation. The Government published their response on 4 June accepting the recommendation and have stated that the code will be revised. The noble Lord’s Motion is out of date. The Conservative chair, Simon Hoare MP, said that he welcomed the Government’s acceptance to amend the code to be more flexible on announcements given the new media environment:

“It has been clear for some time that the current situation regarding the Ministerial Code and major policy announcements is untenable. It is refreshing to see that the Government have shown they are willing to adapt the code in a way which ensures it is fit-for-purpose”.


The letter that colleagues received this morning is substantively out of date. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, will wish to speak to his Commons Conservative colleagues to have an ongoing debate about how the code will be amended.

Notwithstanding that we seek an opportunity for there to be proper consideration of the political priorities and legislative agenda of the Burnham premiership, so far, we have noted that the new Prime Minister has said that he regrets that there have been major omissions, such as real action to fix the crisis in social care and to reduce the crippling burden on businesses, which is wrapped up in Brexit bureaucracy. We need a clear direction on major reforms to our body politic, and tinkering at the edges will not do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

If he will forgive me, I am just—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

By popular demand, I shall give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is an historic speech on his part; this is probably the most momentous missing of the point since the crowd called for Barabbas to be freed. Am I right in thinking that the Liberal Democrats will not vote for greater scrutiny and will decide tonight to let the Government off the hook, because their attachment to their friends in the Labour Party is greater than their commitment to democracy?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It is not exactly Churchillian to ask for a take-note debate. I do not think that “We will take note of them on the beaches, we will take note of them on the landing grounds, we will always take note” is the speech that the noble Lord thinks we need to make. I think we have taken note of enough from that side.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a pertinent single point, quoting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wrote to Labour MPs on 8 July, setting out his approach to how he wanted to treat Parliament. He said that Ministers would respect the House. I presume by that he meant that Ministers would respect the Houses. He also said in his email that he wanted to see us do politics differently.

Senior Deputy Speaker

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to support the Motion from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I think I can genuinely say that everybody on this side is absolutely delighted to welcome him to his place, for many reasons: not just because he is actually a pioneer in the art of having been a hereditary Peer and coming back here, which he is, but because of that charm, grace and attention to detail which he has displayed both in service in government and in so many other ways. I think we can all agree that he will be a successful follower to a really hard act to follow, that of my noble friend Lord Gardiner. I do not know, is he my noble friend again? Well, he always was my noble friend and he has been an absolutely outstanding Senior Deputy Speaker.

I am slightly disappointed that some of our colleagues were unable to stay for just five minutes to express their appreciation of somebody who has served the House so loyally over several years, and I know from the reaction of people around the House that they share my opinion. I think that the noble Lord needs to know the universal appreciation of the way in which he conducted what is actually a very difficult office. I do not think that many people realise the difficult issues that the Senior Deputy Speaker has to deal with, managing not just the whole business of Deputy Speakers but the business that comes through the committees that he chairs and on which he serves. My noble friend is a man of absolutely unimpeachable dignity, decency, kindness and diligence, and the House will miss him.

I think it is quite possible that, when he returns to a greater degree of freedom, he will also return to being what he once was, one of the most doughty defenders of the countryside in your Lordships’ House. At the moment, it is all peace and amity, and let us hope it stays that way, but I gently say to the opposite side that, should the banning of trail hunting come forward, I am not so sure that my noble friend will be quite as irenic and pacific as he is and has been as Senior Deputy Speaker. It is a great privilege to join the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in welcoming and supporting the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and saying farewell and thank you to my noble friend Lord Gardiner.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I add to the unanimity of the House in offering our appreciation of the work of the noble Lord. Much was said in the previous debate about our House operating efficiently and professionally, and we have been helped enormously in that endeavour by the work of the noble Lord. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, many of the functions that the SDS carries out are almost literally thankless, but this is a very good opportunity for us to thank him for the very calm, warm, considered and courteous approach with which he has dedicated his service to our House. We are very grateful.

Select Committees have such an important role in this House, and there has been no stronger champion than the noble Lord with regard to what I consider to be the heart of the ability of all Members, Back-Benchers in particular, to contribute to this House’s reputation. The House’s reputation has been strengthened by his work and we are extremely grateful.

We also give very warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as he takes up his office. We know from his experience, both in government and in this House, that he will bring empathy and professionalism to this role, and we wish him the very best as he carries it out.

King’s Speech

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given the news today, I read nothing into the fact that a former Whip and someone who is qualified in putting out fires are moving and seconding the Motion today. I very much welcome the gracious, witty and warm mover of the Address—the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She was very kind to the leadership across the House, including that of the relatively new Lord Speaker. These Benches rather like the neutrality of the Lord Speaker these days. We share the noble Baroness’s passion for Europe and would also be perfectly happy if, as a consequence of her speech, there is a run on a market—a farmers’ market, as I think I heard her encourage us to eat our greens.

We also welcome the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ray. We very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is not on her way out, but we are very confident that the noble Lord, Lord Ray—

[Noble Lords]

Roe!

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Roe, will definitely be up the political ladder, if not the firefighters’ ladder. I was thinking about how many firefighting puns I could fit into a minute, but I shared his reflection on the relationship with the Chief Whip and the lack of freedom that happens when one arrives here. My predecessor as leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, was our Chief Whip when I arrived here. I clearly remember when he said to me on my first day, “The last thing I ever want to hear you say is that you will decide how to vote after listening to the debate”. I reassure him that, when it comes to voting, I do not like tuna melts, so it will not be me eating his supper.

As the proud son of an ambulance driver, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and his colleagues as first responders in the emergency services for the work that they do around the clock at all times of the year keeping all our communities safe. I thank him for that.

“On growth, defence, Europe, energy—we need a bigger response”.


That is what we were told by the Prime Minister on Monday, and we share that view. Of the new measures announced today, there will be some areas on which we agree, such as parts of the policing changes, NHS structures and SEND, and elements on which we have previously called for action, such as water reform, leasehold reform and the Hillsborough law, which for all of us here is very much unfinished business from previous Sessions. But there will be others on which we will have major concerns, such as illiberal immigration proposals, ID or Heathrow expansion.

A little over a decade ago, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, proposed the same Motion that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, proposed today. He said:

“I am firmly of the view that the less legislation, the better”. —[Official Report, 4/6/14; col. 7.]


I think it is fair to say that others have not been as firm in that view in recent years. Given that we have as many as seven carryover Bills, we are starting a new Session with the unfinished business of the old. We are due to receive 37 Bills in the coming Session. Many laws do not necessarily good government make. But we will approach those to be completed and those to be presented in the same manner as we did in the last Session.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am grateful for the openness and approachability of the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—although we are, he might take note, perhaps a little less keen on the late-night sittings than the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley —and the whole ministerial team in this House. We appreciate their accessibility and openness.

In her reply to the last debate on the Address, the Lord Privy Seal will recall that she said that

“when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 23.]

She knows that there were times when we acted on that invitation when it came to our voting, and I dare say we shall again.

If we are to be a self-regulating House, we must ensure that our House is in order. So, I have gladly added my name to the letter to the leaders in the usual channels referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, reminding us how Report and Third Reading should be carried out. Good scrutiny should be thorough in this House, but this House needs to be efficient, too.

It is obvious that the backcloth to today’s proceedings is the tumult within the Government and whether they have the right approach and level of aspiration to face the major challenges the nation faces. With a possibility of having four different Prime Ministers in four years, Sir Keir Starmer was asked on Monday whether this country was ungovernable. These Benches believe not that the country is broken but that our electoral system and the constitution are, and that both require radical change.

Our politics is too easily interfered with by external forces, whether they be Russia, China or crypto funds from the US. We want to work with the Government to strengthen the protection of our own democracy. The issue is deeper than just who is resident in Downing Street, important though that is. No UK Government in my lifetime have been elected by the majority of the British people, but they have acted as if they have. Only one, where two parties worked together, commanded a plurality of support—and it was the only time in the last 20 years that a Prime Minister completed a parliamentary term.

The challenges the country faces are increasing, but the actual vote mandate of government has declined. This is not sustainable, nor is it healthy. We will tackle the major problems ahead only if we have a broader and more democratic consensus. Without it, those who exploit differences on the far left and far right will continue to have sufficient grievance.

In recent days, I have heard repeated reference to the Government’s large majority in the Commons, but little acknowledgement that two-thirds of those who voted in 2024 did not vote for them. Many had hoped this incoming Government would have understood their limited popular mandate and would start a serious reforming agenda, but they have not yet. Instead, we see tweaking, and too many of our electorate feel deeply that tweaking is insufficient.

The perversions of the electoral system have encouraged recent Governments to focus on a smaller and smaller part of society. In their first year, the Government sought to accommodate the reactionary right, so instead of marvelling at how incredibly successful this country is as a multicultural nation, we heard that we might become “an island of strangers”. Instead of stating loud and clear that we would lead the charge to finally rid the world of absolute poverty, we heard globally respected UK international development described as the world’s charity, which must be halved. Now we see the clamour to tack to a hard left, to the comfort of nationalisation and overregulation. When in power, you can make the weather and not just be buffeted by the winds. All too often in the previous Session we saw the Government buffeted off a course they themselves were uncertain of.

It is obvious that, among the Bills we will receive, the relationship with our biggest trading partner will gain focus. Of course, we welcome any moves for a closer relationship with Europe, but we already know the Government’s own estimate that their reset in EU-UK trade will deliver just a 0.3% uplift to UK GDP by 2030—less than 1/10th of the 4% long-run reduction in UK growth in GDP, which is already seen as an underestimate. In other terms, a £90 billion a year Brexit revenue shortfall is largely unaffected, and the trading agreements with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India will barely meet 0.5% of GDP growth in the long term. Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in 1973 that our head is wise enough and our heart is big enough to embrace both the European Community and the modern Commonwealth. That remains true. Indeed, it is now in our strategic interest that we approach a closer relationship with Europe and remove the economic and irrational red lines on our future relationship.

The reset Bill should not start with setting limitations but instead should enable opportunities. A Bill that sets a cap on ambition will need that cap removed, and we will seek a coalition in this House to remove the red lines. You cannot be at the heart of something when you are on the outside asking for attention. You cannot lead something when you have set red lines saying that you will not participate, and you cannot get the advantages of it when you are not in it. Looking forward, for our businesses, our rural traders, our retail and hospitality sectors, our consumers and, vitally, our young people, it is a strategic priority that we make real progress for a reunion with our close allies in the customs union and single market, and then EU membership, which remains our long-term objective.

Beyond Europe, there was rightly some mention of the crises we see in the world today and the need for us to advance our defences. We support the Government in that. We are impatient for the defence investment plan, and there is still no clarity on joint UK-EU defence procurement. Speed is vital, as the very nature of warfare is changing rapidly and the advance of technology poses new threats. We also need to note the scale. For example, private US tech companies are spending on AI the same as the entire annual UK defence budget every seven weeks.

It was right that the Government chose not to be part of the Iranian war, but we will potentially need to have measures to support British customers, consumers and travellers with the ongoing impact. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, very sincerely that we know that others outside this country will seek to inflame tensions. We will work with the Government to root this out. There is an unacceptable level of antisemitism and extreme Islamophobic racism, and we will support any cross-party approach to tackle this scourge.

Finally, it was sad to me that the world’s worst humanitarian crisis was not mentioned. Yesterday, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued a devastating report on the ongoing horrors done by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to the civilian population in Sudan, in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. That commission report called for urgent measures to protect civilians. Our Government are the penholder on Sudan at the Security Council; we appeal again to them to finally co-ordinate, and then secure, urgent measures to protect civilians in this terrible conflict.

Overall, this Government have the immense responsibility of governing. For the coming Session, we want—for all of us, across all the country—for them to succeed. Where we disagree with them, we shall say so and where they deserve to be supported, we will do so. This is our duty.

Security Vetting

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is a tortuous and, frankly, somewhat embarrassing Statement—stable door after stable door pushed shut long after the obvious national security risk had bolted through them. The Prime Minister is still answering questions on the Statement in the other place; it would surely have been better if it had been repeated here in prime time, at a time when your Lordships had had a chance to digest the Prime Minister’s words, the reactions to them, and the response of Sir Olly Robbins tomorrow. We made that reasonable request, and the Government rejected it. Will the noble Baroness, our Leader, give an assurance that, if asked, she will come back to this House tomorrow to answer questions on Sir Olly Robbins’s response to today’s account of events?

The noble Baroness must know what everybody knew—apart from, it seems, the Prime Minister—that Peter Mandelson was totally unsuitable to be our ambassador to the USA. The Statement’s repeated defence, as we have just heard, is that the Prime Minister would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known his vetting had failed. But you did not need vetting to see that Mandelson was a proven liar. You did not need vetting to see that he was twice forced to resign in disgrace from government. You did not need vetting to hear that he revelled in the company of what he called the “filthy rich”, from whatever dubious nation that might be. You did not need vetting to know that he was a known associate and defender of the convicted paedophile, Epstein. You did not need vetting or process—you needed gumption, judgment and common sense, and you cannot subcontract those things to a Whitehall committee. Was there no one at any stage in this who asked the simple question, “Is this wise?”

The Prime Minister says that Mandelson lied in the course of his vetting. Should we be surprised? Well, no, though it seems the Prime Minister was. That is the crux of the matter. What is absolutely staggering is the truly spectacular scale of the failure of judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing such a man. It embarrasses the Labour movement, which does not deserve to be embarrassed in such a way. No amount of casuistical argument, such as we have just heard, can efface that personal responsibility. One man picked Mandelson, one man pushed him, and the issue is not the “who knew what when” about Mandelson’s vetting, but what everybody knew about Mandelson before he was appointed, all of which the Prime Minister ignored.

This is a Prime Minister on his third Cabinet Secretary—three in under two years. A legion of advisers has been selected, then shoved out of No. 10 as scapegoats for some panic or crisis of confidence. Is not the truth that it is always someone else to blame? I valued the old conventions that Ministers took responsibility. Civil servants were rarely named in this place and never blamed. Whatever happened to those conventions? Why was an outstanding ambassador shoved out of Washington to make way for the likes of Mandelson? It is because the Prime Minister wanted it, and wanted it quick. Why was the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked? It is because the Prime Minister wanted a scapegoat, and wanted it quick. Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister wanted his man Mandelson, come hell or high water, and the Civil Service sought to accommodate his instructions?

Can the noble Baroness tell the House this: did Sir Olly Robbins act against the law, against the Civil Service Code or outside proper process in any way in enabling Mandelson to go forward, despite vetting advice? If so, will she tell the House his specific offences? If not, can she say on what grounds Sir Olly has been fairly dismissed?

The Prime Minister has admitted that he was aware that vetting had not been done on Mandelson when he named him. We know that the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, advised him to wait for that to be done. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister or No. 10 at any stage asked about the vetting and Mandelson’s links to China or Russia? Is it true that the National Security Adviser warned that the process was “weirdly rushed”? Is it true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said just this weekend, that there were “time pressures” to get Mandelson cleared? Is it true, as the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend, that officials were instructed to give “priority clearance” to Mandelson?

It looks as if, on the Prime Minister’s wishes, the process for Mandelson’s clearance was put in what was called—how was it in the Covid era?—the VIP lane, and we all know what became of that. Due process was followed by Sir Olly; that has not been challenged. All the problems arose from the undue haste of the Prime Minister to force through his man and glad-hand it with him in No. 10.

The Statement reveals a world beyond “Yes, Prime Minister”—a bureaucracy of bizarre complexity, in which you cannot see the wood for the legalese, where people have to seek legal advice before they talk to each other, where there are inquiries into inquiries into inquiries, where the Prime Minister sits staggered, unbelieving and unknowing the heart of a system over which he has presided for two years, processing and reprocessing process, for all the world like Sir Humphrey Appleby.

We have not had time to assess in detail the minutiae of this Statement. We have not been permitted to hear Sir Olly’s side of the case before being asked to consider it. We will come back to those things, but what must be clear to all is the astonishing lack of judgment by the Prime Minister in making this appointment, the dire consequences of his undue haste, and the rank smell of the blame game and dumping on senior civil servants—things which should have no place in the conduct of good government.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in thanking the Government for laying this Statement, I begin by paying tribute to our brave service men and women who are serving in this conflict right now. They are the very best of Britain, and they have this House’s unequivocal support.

I remember well 16 October 1964, the day the murderous regime of Chairman Mao announced that China had exploded a nuclear bomb. I will not forget the shiver this sent round the world. How would we have felt if we had heard a similar announcement that the murderous regime of the IRGC and the ayatollahs, steeped in the blood of their own young people, tens of thousands of them, had exploded a nuclear bomb?

Amid the chorus of attacks we heard in the other place yesterday on the US and Israel, some people are forgetting some uncomfortable realities. For decades, the world has said no to an Iranian bomb, but diplomacy did not prevent those who chant “Death to Israel, death to America” pursuing their unlawful nuclear programme. The Iranian regime had all the weapons that it needed to deal death and destruction to civilians in Israel and in neighbouring Arab countries, as it so shamefully has lately. Why did it need to enrich uranium to 60%? Why did it need intercontinental ballistic missiles? There is only one answer, and the mist of misplaced relativism should not hide that truth. A nuclear-armed Iran intended to offer an existential threat to Europe, the UK and the United States.

We could have had peace last weekend after the helpful intervention of our friends in Pakistan if the Iranian regime had been willing to give up its nuclear weapons programme—but it was not. Let us still hope that renewed efforts at negotiation will succeed, but not peace at any price. Of course, we also fervently hope to see peace in Lebanon, a beautiful land caught in the poisonous grip of Hezbollah. But Israel had the right to defend itself against the violence of Iran’s proxies, who have even now rejected peace talks.

Britain did not start this war, as many have said, but we should be in no doubt whose side we are on: our allies in the Middle East, and the United States. Yesterday, in the other place, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who had not a single word of criticism for the Iranian regime, called the elected United States President “immoral” and a “dangerous and corrupt gangster”. We may deplore the language of others, but we should remember our own tongues. Will the noble Baroness join me in repudiating such language about an allied Head of State?

I thought the Prime Minister was judicious in reminding some in his party of the importance of the relationship with the US, and we welcome his meeting our dearly valued allies in the Gulf, who were disappointed by our initial response. We support his diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region.

The Iranian attacks on shipping and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz are an outrage against international law. While no one welcomes blockade, it has been a tactic used by belligerent nations for years, including the UK, not least in two world wars. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the US has said it will apply only to ships using Iranian ports and will not affect other traffic in the strait? What proposals will the UK put to the conference that the Prime Minister is convening? What resources we will commit to that effort, and when? The Prime Minister said yesterday that we would act only when conflict ends.

We hear a lot about a reset with Brussels. Would not a good start be for Britain to follow at least one EU regulation and proscribe the brutal IRGC as a terrorist organisation, as the EU already has? What does the IRGC have to do to meet that response from the British Government?

We agree that we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, but can the noble Baroness appreciate that Labour’s deliberate policy of more expensive energy, which is accelerating the destruction of vital heavy industry, is dangerous and irresponsible? Does she agree with the trade unions, as we do, that we must drill for more oil and gas in the North Sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields and rebuild British production and jobs? Will the Government cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty? They talk of more subsidies, but financed from where? Is not the real answer to end the artificial increase in fuel prices by domestic taxation and levies that have given us the highest energy prices in the developed world?

On defence, for too long all parties in politics, including my own, basked—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, rightly warned us—in the complacency of a so-called peace dividend while evil was on the move. Every serious person, including in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. Yesterday, the Prime Minister rejected a call from my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition to seek a joint cross-party plan, which the Liberal Democrats have also spoken of, to address unsustainable welfare spending and commit resources to defence. That was regrettable. We live in a new world of harsh realities and the first and greatest social security is defence security. Yet sometimes this Government have seemed to have a plan for welfare but not for warfare. Where is the long-promised defence investment plan? The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. Surely, we are far better making those choices together, as my right honourable friend suggested.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. That is how I started my response to the Statement on 2 March. I went on to say that

“the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1080.]

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

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


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

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

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

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


We agree with him.

On 2 March I also said:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I was talking about verbal support”.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk of the Parliaments

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

For now, in the sincerest tones of personal fondness and friendship, I thank Simon for his long service and wish him the very best for a long and ever-contented future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, there have been on 65 Clerks of the Parliaments in the 700 years or more since the role was formed and, as the Leader said, only 20 since the 1824 Act—which governs the role now in statute and argued then for the salary to be the princely sum of £40. It was not set on whether it was inflation-linked, but I am sure that the new clerk will be glad that it was not. That period included the 77 years of the “father and son” role of the Scottish Rose family, almost hereditary in nature for the Clerks of the Parliaments. At that time, their role included a spell in which a sitting MP was also Clerk of the Parliaments in this House—taking joint services a step too far.

The role today, as the Leader said, is in many respects greatly different from that as set out in that legislation. It has been an uneasy one, perhaps—being chief adviser on procedure, master of Norman French but also head of procurement, overseeing security and being responsible for almost constant catering complaints. Simon’s career since 1988 in the House has been marked by courtesy and openness as well as a deep love of parliamentary practice. Those who chaired committees which he clerked, and those such as I who have worked closely with him more recently, have found common features—tirelessness of work, professionalism, courtesy and a real sense of dedication.

Simon was also at the forefront of innovation and change—words sometimes unfamiliar over many years about the House of Lords but which have been led by Simon. He has overseen long-term security and safety of parliamentary archives, huge advances in digital services and professionalising and improving staffing conditions for all who work in this institution. This was put to very effective use when as Clerk Assistant he was responsible for parliamentary services through the very testing times of Covid. Ironically, for some, the House of Lords moved faster and more effectively than the House of Commons. We have learned lessons that benefit us today. We thank Simon and the whole team for that. He took up the Clerk of the Parliaments role when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the Duke of Edinburgh died on his second day in office. His role as part of the term of the connected ceremonies and procedures for that but also for the state funeral of Her Late Majesty and the accession of King Charles was seen not just by us as Members of this House but around the world. He put this institution in good stead, with great respect, having carried out those functions with great success.

The changes in procedures, standards, approaches to working, and, indeed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, the R&R project, in which Simon has had much more of a hands-on role perhaps than the Roses did as his predecessors in the 1840s and 1850s, all mark an extremely active period of which Simon can be rightly proud.

On a personal note, I often reflect on the working environment of the House now compared with a period when I was an assistant to a Peer in 1997. Simon, working first with and then leading colleagues across the House, has transformed this place into a more professional, safe and respectful one for all who work here in whatever form. Perhaps that is his legacy, of which he can be proud, and we can be most thankful that the House of Lords carries out its constitutional functions well and in a way where all Members and staff are valued. We are extremely grateful for his role in doing that.

These Benches, of course, wish his successor as the 66th clerk the greatest of success. We are very confident that she will bring all her outstanding skills to that role and will be a great success. These Benches share the remarks of the Leader and the noble Lord, Lord True, and wish Simon a very happy retirement with our grateful thanks.

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. Before I say anything else, I thank the men and women of our Armed Forces who are serving in the region and who stand ready to support operations there, as well as all the officials and diplomatic and consular staff who are working under great strain. I also thank our Gulf Cooperation Council allies for all they have done to support British nationals in the region.

Can the Minister provide the House with an update on the support being provided to British nationals in the region? The case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman has been raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House. The impact of the ongoing Middle East conflict is clearly extremely worrying for them and their family. Can the Minister please provide a further update on the work Ministers and officials are doing to support them, and redouble our efforts to secure their release?

Turning to the conflict itself, Iran has attacked our military bases, currently holds British nationals captive, has indiscriminately attacked states across the Middle East and is blocking the Strait of Hormuz. In that context, we cannot be silenced. Iran’s actions have implications all over the world, and they will, in particular, affect every British household through higher energy prices. Earlier this week, it was reported in the Times that the Prime Minister was weighing up the legality of whether Britain can join the US military operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

On the issue of international law, can the Minister confirm whether it is the view of His Majesty’s Government that Iran has violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which includes the right to transit? While we are on this subject, can he say whether Iran’s indiscriminate strikes across the Gulf region are lawful? Finally, if international law serves to protect rogue states, does he accept that international law will have failed?

Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. My noble friend Lord Effingham asked the Energy Minister earlier today about the steps to protect British households from rapidly rising energy costs as a result of Iran’s actions. Can the Minister update the House on the work Ministers are doing with our international counterparts to ensure the smooth transit of vessels through the Persian Gulf?

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz must be the priority, but we must develop and secure our domestic supply of fuel. Will His Majesty’s Government approve the Jackdaw gas field development?

Finally, we must not forget the appalling conduct of the Iranian regime. It has murdered its own citizens in droves simply for calling out for democracy, it has refused to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it has been responsible for unacceptable, illegal state-sponsored activity on our shores. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Earl in commending the commitment to our country of our service men and women. It is a deep regret that they are in a position where they are having to risk their lives on an unlawful and unwarranted conflict. On 2 March in this House, the Leader of the Opposition said that when President Trump called the UK should have answered and that the UK should have been fully involved in all the offensive actions in this unlawful conflict unleashed by President Trump with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Government. If we had heeded that, the UK would currently be bombing civilian areas in Tehran and targeting energy installations. Because of the impact on the Strait of Hormuz, we would be seeing the consequences for the UK as a result.

Seeking to tie us directly with President Trump’s decisions was a major strategic error on the part of the Conservative and Reform opposition, especially in the context that more than two weeks into this war we still do not know what the justification was and see no clarity on any endgame and a lack of strategy about what will be next. The Opposition asked us to be fully part of the measures for regime change two weeks ago. They are now silent on this issue. It is appropriate for them to state their position. However, this is the Government’s Statement, the Minister will answer for the Government and I will have a number of questions in a moment.

One of the consequences today is that we are seeing concerns about energy prices in the United Kingdom. This was a wholly predictable outcome. Earlier, we heard questions about seeking greater UK domestic production to try to mitigate this. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global energy market works and how the United Kingdom is part of it. There is no direct correlation between greater North Sea production and greater domestic consumption. Even if there were, North Sea product is traded on the global market. Therefore, the impact on the global oil and gas market has a direct consequence on the United Kingdom. We export almost as much oil as we produce from the North Sea because of the complexities of the UK energy market.

Given all this, what action will the Government take to prevent some of the extremes if the trajectory of energy prices is up? What package of support can there be, particularly for the most vulnerable who need fuel and those living in rural areas? What is the latest with regard to our Government speaking with other like-minded countries that are seeking to mitigate what could potentially be even worse consequences? Can the Minister state whether any British Ministers have visited the region since the start of this conflict? If so, who have they met and what are our priorities for that diplomatic dialogue?

Turning to something of great concern in Lebanon, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, on behalf of the Government spoke very clearly this morning at the Dispatch Box. I agreed with everything he said with regard to the Government’s position on the concerns for Lebanon. It is extremely worrying to hear senior political figures within Israel talk about cleansing part of Lebanon and creating buffer areas. It is becoming apparent that the tactics that have been used in Gaza may well become the tactics used in Lebanon. The consequences of that, given the UK’s support for sovereign territorial integrity for Lebanon, should be significant.

What consequences would there be for the Netanyahu Administration if indeed there were territorial incursions into Lebanese territory? What are the UK Government doing to ensure that civilians are protected? This should not be discretionary in conflict. The protection of civilians is mandated under the United Nations in international humanitarian law. We are seeing far too many civilian areas targeted. What is now becoming apparent is the potential for collective punishment of certain parts of the Lebanese population, which we have seen elsewhere.

If I had asked the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, a question earlier, it might have been, just to follow through what he accurately said, on the fact that the UK has been a very major supporter through official development assistance for Lebanon over many years—£850 million, I recall him saying. The next sentence, however, is that our current level of capacity is an 88% cut in what the UK is providing to Lebanon for a humanitarian crisis, which is now almost on a par with what it was in 2014. The £30 million of humanitarian support, which has been uplifted with a further amount, is less than a quarter of what the UK provided in 2014. So, the UK is simply, in many respects, not at the table when it comes to humanitarian support.

There is also the very considerable concern that there is likely to be an ongoing cycle of violence and trauma of civilians. That includes the Israeli population, which is having to withstand unjustified attacks from Iran, but we are also seeing continuing violence within the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. What is the latest from the Minister with regards to our representations to the Netanyahu Administration on the West Bank? Have we warned them that there will be repercussions if attempts are made for full annexation? Former Prime Minister Olmert has warned of this, and we should equally be warning of the consequences of it.

Finally, the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear me make an appeal to the Government on the associated issue of Sudan. Much of what is happening in the Middle East and Iran has consequences for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Sudan. What are the latest actions taken by the UK, as the penholder, to seek an end to that war and sustainable civilian government for the country?

Before I sit down, I want to close by saying that whatever our differences—and perhaps on this conflict, compared to previous ones, there are differences across this House—these Benches are resolute in believing that the Jewish population in this country should not be held to account for an external, foreign Government, and there should be no excuse for antisemitism on our streets in the United Kingdom. Some of the incidents that we have seen recently are deeply troubling. Likewise, the growth in Islamophobia, especially against young Muslim children in this country, is utterly unacceptable. I wonder whether the Minister would seek to convene cross-party talks, because even worse incidents are likely. We need to be united across this House to ensure that both those are considered to be completely unacceptable and are stopped.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions. I join both of them in acknowledging the service of our people in the region, covering a range of services. It is not just military people; the diplomatic and consular staff are doing an amazing job.

On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on our community cohesion, we addressed that issue on Monday. It is important that we speak with one voice and say that the rise of antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable, and that also applies to Islamophobia. Sadly, we heard some comments from members of the Opposition recently about people praying in public, which were totally unacceptable. We need to come together to ensure community cohesion, because there is no way that anyone alone can be responsible for something such as what is going on at the moment.

The noble Earl mentioned the opinions on our response. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: the Opposition, and certainly the leaders of Reform, have gone from saying very strongly that we must take action to them now reconsidering their position. The Prime Minister has been absolutely correct on this. As he said on 16 March, leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure. I believe that time will show that we have taken the right approach—on the economy, on the cost of living, on defence, on energy and on this war—in the best interests of the British people.

On the Strait of Hormuz, we continue to work closely with our allies on a range of options to support commercial shipping through the strait as the threat picture develops. As the Prime Minister said today, alongside partners, we are ready to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait. We know the impact that it is having on the global economy, the global energy markets and, more importantly, our communities here—people. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday: we are providing £53 million to support those households who are most exposed.

We are not just working with allies on the Strait of Hormuz. The Energy Secretary has spoken to BP, Shell and National Gas in the last few days. As noble Lords would expect, their primary concern is the safety of vessels passing through the strait and their duty of care to their employees in the face of ongoing threats from Iran. More broadly, the DfT constantly monitors UK shipping and, as I say, we are working closely with allies and providing advice and guidance where necessary.

As part of their work, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have both spoken with Lloyd’s of London over the last week to ensure that appropriate insurance cover is available for operators in the light of the ongoing conflict, including policies to cover businesses for losses and disruption caused by the war, civil war and revolution.

I also stress that we are absolutely focused on our consular work. As the noble Earl said, over 101,000 British nationals have returned to the UK since the start of the conflict, including those who returned on the six UK Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We will continue to work with airlines to increase commercial capacity and volume for British nationals. Commercial options have certainly increased. On Sunday, we saw 35 flights, carrying over 8,000 nationals, arrive back home. There is an estimate of a further 300,000 remaining in the region and, obviously, we will provide what consular support we can. I reassure noble Lords that we are making every effort to support the couple who have been arrested and detained. We are doing everything we can through our consular support.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, related to that from the noble Earl. Obviously, our diplomatic relationships with Iran ensure that we can make those clear representations. I am aware that my honourable friend the Minister for MENA, Minister Falconer, has called in the ambassador here to make those representations strongly, as well as trying to provide consular support.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what ministerial engagement we have had. Minister Falconer has been constantly engaged with the commissioners and the embassy here, but also in many phone calls. The Foreign Secretary visited Saudi Arabia on 12 March to demonstrate our support for regional allies and particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council. We are with them absolutely. She saw the defensive support that the UK is providing in response to the immediate Iranian strikes, and discussed how the UK and Gulf states are working together to address threats to energy and civilian infrastructure. Our priority is to make sure that we keep the economy moving, because it helps us back at home. Our Saudi partners are certainly playing a critical role in protecting critical infrastructure and civilians, including the more than 25,000 British nationals who call Saudi Arabia home. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken with leaders across the wider region, including G7 partners, about that.

I turn to the humanitarian situation, particularly in Lebanon, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. As we discussed earlier with the Oral Question to which my noble friend Lord Lemos responded, it is a critical situation. We not only announced £5 million initially but have added another £10 million to make £15 million of humanitarian assistance to Lebanon and neighbouring areas. As we have heard, the situation is incredibly dire—the infrastructure and the bombing.

We have certainly made our position very clear: we have condemned the escalation and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear with all sides that further escalation of this conflict is in no one’s interest. Hezbollah must cease its attacks on Israel. We have also been clear with the Israelis that they must not expand this war further into Lebanon, but must do everything to protect civilians and comply with international humanitarian law.

I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioning Sudan. This conflict is taking our eyes away from the current situation there. We heard from President Zelensky, who was in Parliament this week, who made it absolutely clear that Putin must not benefit from this conflict. We have been very clear about that. We also must understand that many of the sides within Sudan’s conflict have had support from the players who are now involved in this conflict. We must ensure that we do not forget Sudan and that we keep it high up the agenda.

I do not doubt that we will cover more points, but I conclude that we are engaged in supporting our allies and determined to do what we can through defensive measures to protect our interests. We will continue—the Defence Secretary visited Cyprus earlier this week—to take all possible actions to do that.