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.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, over the 34 years since Peter Mandelson was elected to Parliament, he has been disgraced and rehabilitated by successive Labour leaders. The Prime Minister brought him back into the fold for the final time as our ambassador to the United States. We now have a partial explanation of how Mandelson operated secretly. He and his partner were in receipt of electronic cash transfers from the notorious paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. As money and benefits in kind flowed their way, he casually passed state secrets back to his benefactor. Epstein’s crimes were appalling: paedophilia, sex trafficking and child prostitution. We must not forget his victims, who suffered at his hands and are still suffering today.

It is right that Mandelson is no longer a Member of your Lordships’ House. It is right that there will be an internal investigation into his behaviour. And it is right that the police will investigate any potential criminality. While Peter Mandelson’s conduct is deeply disappointing, it is the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint him as the UK ambassador to Washington that almost defies belief. Mandelson’s claim in the years preceding his appointment as ambassador to the United States had been that he did not continue his relationship with Epstein once the latter had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution. Thanks to the excellent work of the Financial Times, it was already public knowledge in 2023, before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, that this story was a lie. The Prime Minister now freely concedes that he was fully aware of this fact at the time that he appointed Mandelson.

I suspect that many in your Lordships’ House will, like me, find the Prime Minister’s decision to overlook this startling fact a complete dereliction of duty and an illustration of an appalling lack of judgment. The Prime Minister was under no pressure to appoint Mandelson. There were many able and distinguished career diplomats from whom he might have chosen—and, indeed, many able and distinguished career politicians, who, crucially, had not become embroiled in a disturbing private relationship with a known paedophile. I do not propose to ask the Lord Privy Seal to explain questions of conduct and judgment that the Prime Minister himself is seemingly incapable of explaining. Instead, I will focus on what we on these Benches feel ought to happen next.

Although it is clear that the Prime Minister disregarded the disturbing revelations made in the Financial Times, it is not presently clear whether the extensive security vetting to which Mandelson was subject had identified either the flow of payments from Epstein or the deeply compromising nature of the relationship between the two. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm whether officials in the UK sought information from the US Government on the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson? If so, what information was shared?

Separately, we are told that there will be an internal government investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has revealed publicly that he wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in September asking for a review of any further communications between Epstein and Mandelson, only to be told by way of answer that no relevant material had been identified. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House why, in light of this, the internal Cabinet Office investigation is being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary? Would it not be better for this investigatory process to be led by somebody who does not report to the Prime Minister and whom a former Labour Prime Minister has not essentially accused of a cover-up?

Yesterday, the other place voted to require the Government to lay before the House all papers relating to the ambassadorship appointment. That is essential if the Government are to regain trust after this sorry saga. The Government caveated the humble Address to exclude papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. Such material will instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses. Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that all relevant material will be made available to the ISC, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister will seek to use their powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to prevent that committee from publishing its findings in full?

It is not sufficient for any of these investigations to look only into historic behaviour or to focus solely on Mandelson’s links with Epstein. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Epstein was not the only rich man of dubious repute with whom Peter Mandelson was known to share a close friendship. We need to know how Peter Mandelson conducted himself while serving as our ambassador in Washington. Did this conduct continue there? Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that neither the Cabinet Office investigation nor the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prevented from looking into all evidence relating to how Peter Mandelson has conducted himself, including while serving as ambassador?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Japan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on a Statement by our well-travelled Prime Minister. Actually, we on this side do not criticise the Prime Minister for travelling abroad: it is part of his job. What we do criticise is the devastating impact his policies are having on businesses and jobs here at home. The Prime Minister is also right to say that we cannot ignore China, but in our submission the Government are being weak in the face of the threat China poses to the UK and more widely to the West. Of course, we must engage, but this is not how it should be done. Too many key cards were given away before the visit for almost nothing in return.

Yes, a cut in whisky tariffs and visa-free access—something which many other countries already enjoy—are welcome, but are they the hard-fought victories that come from serious negotiation? I do not think so; though I think the leader of the Liberal Democrats may actually join me when I reflect that I am encouraged to think that at least some in the Chinese leadership might be eased by the civilising impact of the best whisky in the world. The problem is that, before he got on the plane, China had already gained the prize of a mega-embassy here, right in the heart of our capital. It also continues to fund Putin’s war machine. Can the noble Baroness say—and I know the Prime Minister raised this point—whether he feels that we made any progress in reducing China’s support for Russia’s illegal war?

Of course, China continues its oppression of the Uyghur people, who have suffered so much for too long. Did we get any guarantees that any increase in Chinese exports will not be produced by modern slave labour?

The Prime Minister claimed in the Statement that the previous Government were isolationist. I ask: who was first on the front line with Ukraine before and while Putin invaded? If we are talking of Asia and the Pacific, who took Britain into CPTPP? That is the very Indo-Pacific theatre that the Prime Minister rightly visited. We on this side believe strongly that we should look to Asia and the Pacific.

The Government tell us that we need a thawing in our relations with China. Of course, we wish for good relations with all nations, but fine words butter no parsnips. We must not forget that this is a country that spies on us, steals intellectual property and frequently launches cyber attacks.

We welcome that the Prime Minister raised words of protest about the totally unacceptable incarceration of Jimmy Lai. When will we know what comes of that? Did the Prime Minister, who is forthright on the importance of law and justice, condemn China’s flagrant and continuing breaching of treaties on Hong Kong and its oppression of people there?

We are told that China agreed no longer to sanction the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Stopping doing one wrong thing is fine and dandy, but when will China answer the cries of those noble Lords and of so many in this House for an end to the terrible wrong of the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people?

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure us that the Prime Minister raised Chinese intellectual property theft with President Xi during their meeting? This is a grave and continuing problem. What assurances may we have secured on the cyber attacks launched by Chinese state actors? When will they end, and who will be punished?

I turn to Chinese espionage. We all know for a fact that agents of the Chinese state seek and have sought to spy on our Parliament. Did the Prime Minister raise China’s espionage in Parliament with President Xi, and did he receive any assurances on that subject?

In the light of the Government’s statement that they are inviting police to review Lord Mandelson’s alleged sharing of government information with foreign agents and foreign actors, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that any inquiry will review all possible leaks, not just in the United States but to China and other nations?

I have a specific question that I accept the Lord Privy Seal may not be able to answer specifically now —but I ask her to write to me. Did the Prime Minister meet Jingye, the owner of British Steel? Will she say what was discussed about the future of British Steel? If not, why not, given that the Government are injecting working capital at an annualised rate of roughly £500 million? When can we expect the steel strategy, promised in 2025, by the way?

While the Prime Minister was on his visit, more concerns about the Government’s Chagos deal were being raised here at home and in Washington. Beijing’s ambassador to Mauritius has previously welcomed the treaty as a “massive achievement” and said that China “fully supports” the agreement. Did President Xi or any Chinese officials express their support for the Prime Minister’s Chagos treaty to him during his visit? Can the noble Baroness confirm that 6,000 Mauritian officials, some of whom would take control of Chagos under this deal, have been trained by China? Was there any discussion of that? In addition to such growing Chinese influence in Mauritius, there is the threat of Chinese spy boats breaching the marine protected area around the Diego Garcia base. All these are serious matters on which Chinese-British relations are engaged. Can she shed any light on discussions on Chagos in China?

On a more positive note, we wholeheartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan. As I say, such visits are part of a Prime Minister’s job. We share the Government’s wish to see deeper ties and growing collaboration with our Japanese partners, with whom we have such a strong and mutually beneficial relationship as trading partners through CPTPP and in defence through the Global Combat Air Programme. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal assure us the UK remains fully committed to the GCAP? The Prime Minister is right to strengthen our relationship with Japan and, in developing that critical alliance, he will always have our support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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


That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.

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

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

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

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

The same for us with you, Jim.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, from our Benches, I add our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for carrying out his duties with great courtesy and warmth. Being Speaker—who often cannot speak—of this self-regulating Chamber is a difficult job; therefore, carrying out the duties on the Woolsack, on the commission and the R&R board and the myriad of other responsibilities, the power of persuasion is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has been an outstanding persuader throughout all his years of public service.

As a distinguished chair of the Treasury Select Committee, he elevated the House of Commons in a time of great financial concern, so the public knew that Parliament was listening, considering and acting. In this House, as Lord Speaker, he brought his chairing skills of 10 in that committee to 600—not always predictable—Members of this House with great skill; perhaps his teaching abilities were put to good use. From Dumbarton for the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to Montrose, Arbroath and then St Andrews University for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—where, to his own recollection, he was a socialist—who then served Stirling with great commitment, we know that John had very deep political beliefs, but he wore them with a friendly demeanour.

It is often illustrative to read maiden speeches from when statespeople are in their impressionable younger years. John McFall railed against spending money on nuclear weapons in his Commons maiden speech in 1987, while Michael Forsyth criticised the way BT was privatised in his in 1983; he then called for an elected element to this House in his Lords one later. I think we all know which one he regrets the most.

However, we know that both noble Lords have major things in common: a great love of and respect for the areas and the people they represented; a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability; and their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and wit. We are also grateful for the deep instinct of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to work across parties. In the short time I have been leader of these Benches, I have been extremely grateful for his constant outreach and kindness, and I pay tribute to his highly admirable ambassadorship of this House. I cannot speak for others, but for me, when we have had visiting Heads of State and Government address us in both Houses, it is the foreign dignitaries’ remarks that have been the second best of the occasions.

In the “Lord Speaker’s Corner” conversation between the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Forsyth, just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said something which struck a chord with me. He said:

“It really saddens me to see how the reputation of Parliament and politicians has been damaged. Whereas, as you and I know, the vast majority of parliamentarians are good, decent folk trying to do the best for their country”.


That could readily have directly applied to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who served his constituents with passion and dedication, elevated the House of Commons, and has now been our ambassador; we are most grateful. We wish John’s wife, Joan, and the whole family the very best, as he is now able to spend some time with them.

We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the best. We will be admiring his poker face during Questions on the Woolsack in the months to come. From our Benches, we wish him the best, with all the skills that he brings to bear for this very important role.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow three warm and special reflections on the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I agree with every word and sentiment that has been expressed. On behalf of these Benches, I will just add a little bit of early history of one of our most remarkable colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, is a fellow Scot—albeit that I am an easterner—and I well know Alcluith, the ancient name of Dumbarton and also the great rock on which Dumbarton Castle was built. Indeed, Alcluith, capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, ruled mid-west Scotland with an iron rod in the ninth and 10th centuries. As I say these words, noble Lords will be quick to appreciate where Alcluith is in the pecking order in that bit of the world and to sympathise with the poor old noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is, sadly, not in his place.

As we heard, John, a son of Alcluith, was a Dumbarton MP for 23 years. I am sorry that my maths is a bit different from the noble Baroness the Leader’s. Most importantly, he was chair of the Treasury Select Committee for nine of those years, and he had a very well-earned reputation as a fearsome chair, flavoured with being extremely competent. He had essentially weekly meetings with the Bank of England, which much respected his inquisition. Indeed, one Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was quizzed by him over the Northern Rock affair and was accused by him of being

“asleep in the back shop while there was a mugging out front”.

As he stepped down from chairing the committee, the Bank of England organised a drinks reception for him. This is a very rare thing indeed. By chance, a senior member of the Bank of England, who had worked there most of their life, was here a couple of weeks ago, and I asked them about it. They said there were two reasons for holding the reception. The first was to thank him unreservedly for his work as chair of the committee. The second was to check that he really was going.

In 2016, John took over from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to become the newly named Senior Deputy Speaker. He very much created this role, but his most lasting achievement was of course the review of committees, which the whole House agreed to in October 2019. Using this structure, the old EU committees were morphed into what are today powerful and proud self-standing entities, such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Change is always difficult, yet, speaking as John’s then deputy and chair of the EU committee structure, I saw John seeming to make it easy. It was not. He invoked his Treasury Select Committee experience at the first sign of trouble.

I have said very little of his time as Lord Speaker, but I did not want to repeat the warm words of my three previous colleagues. The common thread of what has been said is of his integrity, his outstanding political instincts and his disarming smile. One recent thing summed everything up for me. John came to the Cross-Bench weekly meeting last Wednesday to reflect on his time as Lord Speaker. As many here today will know, normally, a guest speaker is subjected to searching questions and a comprehensive examination of their brief. Instead, with John, when it came to questions, there was a great number of short contributions expressing gratitude and giving congratulations to him on his various achievements in office. At the end of the session, and quite without precedent, 50 Cross-Bench Peers got up and gave him a standing ovation. We very much look forward to welcoming him to our Benches in due course when he can return.

There are very few words about our new Lord Speaker, but it is of course very good news for the Scottish Peers Association, because we can continue to have our drinks parties in the River Room. If noble Lords like a drinks party, we have a few more spaces if anyone would like to apply to be a member. The new Lord Speaker has wonderful energy and great wit and charm. We have a number of big problems ahead of us, and I wish him a lot of luck, as I know everyone on our Benches does.