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.

Gibraltar Treaty

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. I should begin by saying that the Official Opposition welcome the fact that the Government of Gibraltar have been at the table throughout these negotiations. Gibraltar is British. The Government tell us that sovereignty was never on the table throughout these negotiations, and it never should be. I only wish they were consistent in their application of this approach to other treaties.

This treaty runs to more than 1,000 pages and, of course, we need time carefully to consider the detail. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring the publication of the treaty in draft. This has allowed us to begin the process of scrutiny early. Can the Minister say when the treaty will be laid formally so that we can plan for the CRaG process that will follow? When we went through the CRaG process for the 2025 UK-Mauritius treaty, the Government failed to follow the Ponsonby rule, which established the convention that the Government will allow a debate on a substantive Motion in respect of treaty ratification where a formal request is made by the Official Opposition. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will follow the convention if a request is received in respect of this treaty?

On a connected scrutiny point, can the Minister say whether domestic legislation will also be needed before we proceed to ratification? If so, when will that be laid before the House? As the Minister knows, we have been critical of the Government’s sequencing of the agreements in respect to the UK-Mauritius treaty and the Bill, so can he say whether the Government are aware of any extant and binding treaties in respect of Gibraltar that may be in tension with the terms of the draft treaty that has now been agreed with the EU?

I turn from process to the practicalities of the treaty. Can the Minister please set out the steps that will be taken under the treaty to protect the rights of British citizens freely to visit Gibraltar? We know that dual passport checks will be undertaken at the airport in Gibraltar. What recourse will a citizen have in circumstances where Spanish border control and British border control are in disagreement on a person’s admission to what will remain British territory? Can he say what oversight UK authorities will have over the activities of the Spanish border control operations in Gibraltar? What is the process for dispute resolution?

Ministers know that we on these Benches have profound concerns about the process of dynamic alignment. We must not be rule-takers. How will dynamic alignment operate under this treaty? How will Gibraltar and the UK avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control? Can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar and not EU politicians will decide on her own future?

When the Minister in the other place was asked about Article 25 and its reference to the ECHR, he said that

“we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that”.—[Official Report, 26/2/26; col. 489.]

That is, obviously, a statement of the status quo, but can the Minister please explain what the status of Article 25 would be if the UK were to withdraw from the ECHR? Would an amendment to the treaty need to be agreed with the EU at that point or could the UK derogate from Article 25 unilaterally?

Finally, on a point of fairness, this treaty appears to create an imbalance in the treatment of EU citizens and UK citizens. An EU national may have free access to Gibraltar through the land border without any restrictions whatever, but a British national travelling from the UK could potentially be banned from entering at the airport by Spanish border control guards. These are challenging issues, and we understand why compromise can be necessary, but could the Minister please set out the work that he is doing to ensure that UK citizens continue to have smooth and free access to Gibraltar, which is, after all, still a British territory? I look forward to the Minister’s reply to these questions.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to FCDO business, even though it may well be temporary. These Benches support this treaty. In the House of Commons, without any sense of irony, the Conservative Opposition said that Parliament had been kept in the dark about this treaty. However, it was the previous Government who ignored the wishes of the 96% of people of Gibraltar who sought to remain in the EU, forced on them the hardest of Brexits, took no action to correct the damage that they were told by Gibraltarians would happen, and then refused to present to Parliament a mandate for negotiations to have a sustainable agreement.

I therefore thank the Government for working closely with the Gibraltar Government and agreeing with these Benches, who said before the election that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltar. I also put on record the hard work of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, Joseph Garcia, who is from our sister party, as well as of officials, including the recently retired Dominique Searle, the Gibraltar representative in the UK, for all their patience, perseverance and dedication to reach agreement.

I welcome the fact that the Gibraltar Parliament is debating this treaty as we speak. The fact that the Gibraltar Government have accepted a constructive amendment from the opposition means that we will likely see it pass unanimously in the Gibraltar Parliament and then be sent to us for consideration under the CRaG process. I hope that, if our EU committee seeks a debate on this, the Government will honour the Grimstone convention in this House and timetable a debate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government will do that if the EU committee seeks it.

These Benches have supported, and will always support, the right of the Gibraltarians to decide their future. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that there are no sovereignty concessions and, indeed, no mechanisms in this treaty that would allow for sovereignty claims? I know that the Gibraltar Government sought independent legal advice to confirm this, but the Minister putting it on the record at the Dispatch Box would be helpful.

I believe that the EU and Spain have entered into these new arrangements in good faith, but we have to be conscious of the previous unilateral actions of Madrid, which has caused disruption and concern for Gibraltarians in the past. Can we receive assurances that the dispute resolution mechanisms between the EU and the UK will also allow for Gibraltar to seek to extract itself from the terms should it feel that the terms have been reneged on? I hope that that will never be necessary, but we do not know; a right-wing Government in Madrid might perhaps take a different view from the current one.

I note also the Gibraltar Government’s pragmatic position on the involvement and operation of the ECJ. We are perhaps starting to see sensible approaches again, which is welcome. As we seek better and closer relations with the EU, can we ensure in the reset on SPS and, I hope, youth movement that there will be no negative implications for this treaty? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Also, as part of the SPS discussions, can we seek an SPS point for Gibraltar adjacent to Gibraltar—not farther away than currently being envisaged—which will be greatly beneficial to the Gibraltar economy?

The benefits of the work of the Gib Government will be for the people and the economy of Gibraltar. There are 15,000 crossings each day for workers in Gibraltar. All parts of society are interconnected. The healthcare and social care service is reliant on staffing and family relationships cross the frontier. This does not make any Gibraltarian less British, but it does mean that easing and removing friction is a pressing need.

We would also like to see no delay now in the implementation and I ask the Minister if we are preparing for provisional implementation of the agreed text, prior to formal ratification, to avoid the unnecessary burden of installing costly infrastructure for entry and exit systems before 10 April. This would be a pragmatic and welcome step.

We welcome the approach of the Gibraltar Government, the UK Government and the EU, and we hope that we can learn positive lessons and build on this leadership by Gibraltar so that the rest of the UK can adopt a similar mechanism and processes to enjoy the benefits that Gibraltar will see. If it is good for the people and economy of Gibraltar, does the Minister agree that it is good for the people and the economy of the UK as a whole?

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. As someone who has spent many years studying the history of that region, I have the profoundest respect for the history and culture of Iran, which over millennia has been one of the greatest pillars of world civilisation. Since the Islamist takeover in 1979, its extraordinary people have suffered horrendously—for the last 37 years under the pitiless hand of the late unlamented dictator Khamenei. The Statement implies that for our greatest ally, the United States, to act against this abhorrent regime was unlawful. It conspicuously offers no support for the strikes and says repeatedly that we will do nothing like them. Can the Lord Privy Seal please set out the Government’s legal position on the US action? It is simply not enough for them to say that this is for the US to explain. Frankly, that is a cop-out. She has the leading expert sitting alongside her.

Can she also say why our bases could not be used to protect US and Israeli citizens when they were under attack but can be used now when other nations are attacked? Is this an example of what they call two-tier international law? Did the savage slaughter of thousands of unarmed youngsters crying for freedom a few weeks ago not tell us anything about the brutality of this regime? Was that mass murder not unlawful? Did the fact that this regime has conducted multiple plots on British soil not sway the Government? Did the fact that the Iranian regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism not tell the Government anything? Was mass terror paid for by Iran for decades not unlawful? Had the Government not noticed that the declared objective of the regime was to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state? Did they not hear Khamenei praising the massacre of innocent Jews on that dreadful 7 October? Was that in accordance with international law?

Were we simply to watch and let this regime acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to target them on Britain? Was an attempt to stop that by the USA unlawful? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow Attorney-General, has said:

“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed”.


The Statement calls for negotiation, and of course that is the ideal. But the Khamenei regime faked negotiation, reneged on what was negotiated, played for time to develop nuclear weapons, and even now repudiates a negotiated course. Sometimes in human affairs there comes a deciding moment when we are called on to take a choice on where we stand. Opinions may legitimately differ, but the choice has to be made. Last week was such a time, and history will record that when our US ally asked us for help, this Government chose to say no.

Our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by the US. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that we on this side also stand with the US and Israel for taking necessary action to defend themselves and nations across the world from a regime steeped in blood and terror for decades. Where were we when our American allies called last week? We did not just pass by on the other side; we stood in their way and said they could not use the bases. They have noticed.

We welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness has told us today, that the Government have changed their mind on the use of our bases, albeit after far too long. But can she explain to the House how we will know whether each US combat mission is, as the Statement puts it, in line with a

“specific and limited defensive purpose”?

Can she set out to us how in practice this will be determined, mission by mission, and by whom?

The reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran on its neighbours in the last days did not reveal but simply confirmed the regime’s well-laid aggressive plans and intent. As the noble Baroness has said, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our brave service men and women, and those of other allied nations, many under attack by Iran, who are now engaged in action. Like the noble Baroness, we salute them and we think of their families.

I also thank the Government for setting out in some detail the actions they are taking to support and protect the hundreds of thousands of our citizens caught in areas under Iranian attack. Many people in the House will have family or friends in the Gulf. I certainly do, and I know at first hand of their current anxiety. Will the noble Baroness keep the House informed of the development of any contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens?

On another issue, does the noble Baroness accept that, in the light of clear evidence of the world strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and in the context of a major conflict in the Middle East, the Bill proposing the naive deal to surrender the Chagos Islands cannot proceed? From this Dispatch Box I have often—and noble Lords opposite will know this—praised the role of the Prime Minister on the international stage. I have spoken here highly of his record on and support of Ukraine. So it was sad to hear this morning the President of the United States feeling he had to be so critical of the Prime Minister on both the strikes over the weekend and the Chagos deal.

This is indeed a time of trial. Our allies and the wider world will judge of what we are made, and we must be decisive, resolute and implacable in the face of this barbarous terror regime.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that

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

Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that

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

but this week he said that:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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