Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it might be helpful for me to intervene at this point and set out the position of the Official Opposition, although I assure the House that I will listen carefully and weigh every contribution, including those from the many who may disagree with me. First and foremost, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for introducing this important debate in such a typically thoughtful fashion. Even if I do not agree, I thank her and all the members of her committee for their careful work and balanced report. Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation on leave of absence and declaration of interests; I hope that will be taken forward.

I declare an interest: like the noble Baroness, I will be expelled under these proposals—in my case, on 8 July 2033. Let us get the language right: “mandatory retirement” for sitting Members means expulsion. I confess that I find that prospect painful. No doubt like others here, I ask: what have I done wrong? Appendix 5 of the report tells me that up to 367 Peers could be expelled from the House over the next seven and three quarter years. In addition to expulsion on grounds of age, 94 Peers currently sitting would have failed the proposed 20% threshold. Taken together, that is a monster cull, on top of dozens of Peers recently expelled by this Government.

Of course, I concede that, as the report says, the figures may well be significantly lower. Some of us lined up for the sack may die and some may retire voluntarily. After all, as the noble Baroness said, the average retirement age is 82. Eighty-two? Eighty? What problem are we trying to solve in inflicting such a purge on the House?

Unlike the Select Committee, I am not constrained by terms of reference, so I will address some wider questions and ask: why are we here? Some have said it is to reduce our numbers. I have never really bought that argument, as noble Lords know. The largest Division this year had 475 votes. Such numbers are not an adequate reason for a mass cull of nearly half the House, potentially. What guarantee is there that prime ministerial patronage would not be used to fill the empty spaces with more compliant Members than those forced out?

If not numbers, is the reason party balance? There was an unacceptable and unequal balance between the two main parties in 2024, but that balance is now nearing equality. A difference of 14, and narrowing, between Labour and Conservatives does not justify a mass cull, and actually the group that would suffer most from the report’s proposals are the Cross-Benchers, who could lose half their number. We should be careful what we wish for.

No, as the noble Baroness said, the reason we are here is because the Labour manifesto bushwhacked the House with a draconian and, frankly, discriminatory and ageist proposal, and now we are threatened that, if hundreds of us do not go gently into that dark night, the Government will slam down a legislative guillotine. Really? Wherefore this mania to expel people from our House? Who is driving this? Sir Keir Starmer, who wrote the manifesto, is gone. Mr Burnham has said that his inspirations were the noble Lords, Lord Kinnock and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, all remarkable figures, much valued here. But, under these plans, the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, are booted out on 8 July 2029, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on 6 June 2031. The sixth of June: it would be nice if that day could be remembered for another D than the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Is this really the new Prime Minister’s wish, or is someone else driving all this? Can our Leader explain?

Two criteria are proposed for the cull: age and participation. First, Labour wants to expel hundreds of Peers simply because they are older. There are many over 80 who make extraordinary contributions to public life, here in this House and elsewhere. Can we imagine, on 21 April 2006, someone rapping on the late Queen’s door saying, “Happy birthday, Ma’am. You’ve had a good run, but today you’ve got to clear your desk—but you can come back for a cup of tea”? How much wisdom and leadership would this nation have lost? Is not the same true among us here? Is it wise to attack all those who can and do perform their duty here and not address the issue of capacity, of those perhaps no longer so able to act? Age or incapacity: which more risks our disrepute? Might cognitive tests be a better focus than the blunderbuss of an age bar? Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether this alternative is being considered?

This age bar will purge from our Parliament the voice and outlook of a major cohort of the British people: 7% of our adult population are over 80. After these measures, the numbers from that cohort in our Parliament will be barely 0.1%. Who then from the ranks of the elderly will speak in our Parliament for them? We should be cautious about silencing the leavening voice of experience.

Every noble Lord will judge this matter freely, but let me say a word as Leader of the Opposition. My party will not support the mass expulsion of sitting Members who are well capable of doing their job and are doing it well. We can discuss rules that may apply to new Members, but we think it wrong to quash the rights of all sitting Members over 80. If the Government seek to legislate, attempts may be made to amend a Bill to ensure that any age bar should apply for the future, not expel those valued colleagues now sitting here. This House has voted before for grandfather rights: the principle that workplace rights should not be taken from those who have them. It might well vote again for that very fair principle without overturning the idea of a future age limit.

My party has a constitutional problem with the central mechanism of the report and the precedent it would set. For the House of Lords to pass a resolution to tell people to go would mean that this House alone would seek to decide who its Members should be. It is not for the Government or a single House to decide who sits in Parliament; it is for Parliament. My noble friend the shadow Attorney-General will address the legal points. The report is correct at paragraph 84 that a resolution of this House cannot override the legal right under the 1958 Act to a writ. Some take comfort in paragraph 85, which concedes that Peers may simply say, “No”—I have heard much fruitier language—when their birthday comes, and will go on attending by virtue of the writ. This is hardly satisfactory. Most would no doubt comply, but some would not. Invidious divisions would arise.

There are reasons—perhaps 72 million reasons—why this is also a bad political precedent. Let us suppose Reform forms a Government. Prime ministerial patronage would allow a Reform leader, even in a minority Government, to do what he says he would: pack this House. His new Peers might also pass a resolution. They might say their party was elected to sweep away the establishment, so any Peer who had been in the House for more than five years should leave forthwith. No doubt many of us might refuse, as paragraph 85 says we could. The mother and father of constitutional crises would erupt between the two Houses. I submit that this House should be cautious about laying that precedent on the table. Away from such a looming example, what is to stop a future House passing a similar resolution excluding this or that category of Peer? These are murky waters, but to us the constitutional principle is clear. This House alone should not assert the right to choose who here should stay and who should go without the assent of Parliament as a whole.

On participation, I recognise that many wish to see action. The Select Committee rightly rejected the measure of performative speaking. It was sensitive to the truth inherent to a House of experts: some will come only when they have something worthwhile to say, and we will be glad to hear them when we do. As the report points out, there will be cases in which unforeseen illness or other commitments may make it hard for Peers to attend. We should not build intrusive mechanisms that probe sensitive personal circumstances.

There are other questions. On attendance, in a typical 150-day session it would cost £11,130 per Peer just for the daily allowance, simply to establish the threshold right to remain. Is the 20% threshold too high? Does the exclusion criterion favour those who live near London? Who precisely are the Peers who will be affected, and how many? The principle is wearable and, unlike retirement, legally enforceable, but it bears further reflection on the details, building on the committee’s excellent report.

To conclude, if we are to go forward, I submit that the outcome must meet four clear tests. Will it improve the ability of this House to hold Governments to account? Will it enrich the experience in this House? Will it enhance the independence of the House from recent or present Governments? Will it enable the House and its committees to do their revising work better? In my judgment, these proposals, however ingenious and constructive, would fail those tests. They gild the manifesto thorn bush but do not remove the thorns. Instead of plunging forward with haste, we should take time to think with honesty and humility across party lines about the far-reaching implications of an age bar for this House, its Members and the voice of the elderly in the councils of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord was only talking about the DUP, because we have Members on our Benches from Northern Ireland as well. One of the things we need to look at, and we are bringing forward further proposals on this, is that the House as a whole has to better represent the whole of the UK. That has been recognised. Part of the issue is possibly allowances; people talked about the financial cost of travelling further distances and having to stay overnight. We are bringing further proposals; I totally agree that we have to have a House that is more representative on all kinds of levels, but certainly geographically, which is very important.

I turn to some of the other issues that were in the report. The comments about leave of absence from the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, were interesting, in that they think the point on conduct should apply to all, whether they are on leave of absence or Members of this House.

I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to this, but the comments about a retirement association—whether it is called emeritus or not is irrelevant; I do not mind what it is called—were really important. It is one of the things that I suggested some time ago, when we were debating the hereditary Peers Bill. Noble Lords may not be aware of the booklet, but one thing that has always concerned me about this House is that often, as Members age, they come in a bit less and we see a bit less of them. Then they get ill and we do not see them for a long time. They may come in occasionally, and they just disappear and fade away. We do not show them the respect and the value that we put on them by ever saying “Thank you” or recognising their work. They just fade away and we do not see them again.

I want Members to know what is available to them when they retire from the House. They can vote in a general election, as the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Dubs, asked me. That is in the booklet, and I recommend it. It is a way of saying to Members who retire from this House: “We value your service. These are the kinds of facilities that are still available to you, and you remain our friends and colleagues and can come to the House”. It is important that we do that.

I was rather taken aback by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord True, at the beginning—I know he is generally a bit snippy and he is cross about this anyway—when he talked about the issue of capacity, because he knows that one of the first things I did when I became Leader of the House was talk to the Administration about this. We also had a meeting through the usual channels to talk about this issue. I see a number of noble Lords who have been at these meetings acknowledging that. We have progressed that work, as he well knows; the work is under way. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this. My noble friend the Chief Whip has held a series of meetings, following on from the initial meetings we had, with the usual channels, the Clerk of the Parliaments and other House officials, which have been productive. They form the basis of an agreement on a way forward to deal with the issue of capacity.

This is a sensitive issue, and I think we all want to treat our friends, colleagues and other noble Lords with respect and kindness. That has been uppermost in the Chief Whip’s mind as he has been dealing with it. For the next steps, the respective Chief Whips and the Convenor will lead this work to take it forward and will bring a report forward to be agreed in the usual channels and presented to the Procedure Committee. That work is very important and is ongoing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry if I appear snippy. Sometimes, the Opposition are permitted to criticise proposals or to probe them. On the point I am making about capacity, I am aware of the welcome action we agreed on power of attorney, and we have had these discussions. My point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and many others made: this is an ageist and discriminatory measure, in using age as a blunderbuss to take a lot of people out of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, as a proxy for capacity. Why do we not focus on capacity and let the capable aged stay?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if this was a proxy for capacity, we would not be bringing it forward, and we would not do both at the same time. I think the noble Lord misunderstands the reasons why the retirement age has been proposed. I was perfectly willing to accept that our manifesto was rather crude in its approach: it said Members would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they were 80. The proposal brought forward by the committee is much more sophisticated and thoughtful for Members of the House. But the noble Lord seems to think that no Member of the House should ever retire unless they want to. If we constantly do that, the House will continue to grow in size and we will not bring in Members with new experience and expertise to understand what is happening. This is not in any way to disrespect Members who have given many years’ service—a lifetime of service in some cases—to the House or those who thought they would be here until they chose not to be. It is about how we can have an effective House, do our best work as the House of Lords and best contribute to the role we have.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who probably now has a different title that I cannot remember, made a comment about donors, and I entirely agree with him. If the only reason somebody is being made a Member of this House is because they have made large donations to a political party, that is entirely inappropriate and wrong. He also talked about the size of the House and ensuring that, as people left, it was not a case of just creating a vacancy. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was particularly concerned that the House could be packed and flooded with Members to keep a Government in power for a long time. In a sense, that could have happened at any time in our history; we had an unlawful Prorogation under a previous Prime Minister, which the courts were able to deal with. This House has the right to say how Members are introduced. It is not sharing a secret, because I spoke to a number of noble Lords opposite about this at the time, but shortly after I became shadow Leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg said that he would introduce a thousand new Peers to force Brexit through in exactly the way that the Government wanted. A number of us felt that, if he tried that one on, we would introduce one Peer a week, and it might have taken him some time. There are ways of addressing that through our constitutional arrangements at the moment as well.

We have already taken some action on the Appointments Commission. We have strengthened the transparency in appointments and worked with the House of Lords Appointments Commission to update its vetting forms. The vetting has to be stronger, and we are looking at that. We have looked at my own party’s vetting processes as well.

I reiterate my thanks to the committee. It was given an almost impossible task, and it did it with great aplomb and sensitivity. I value the work of this House, but if we say that we will never change, always do things in exactly the same way and leave others to make the change and take no responsibility ourselves, we do not get the change that we want. This is an opportunity for the House to show that we can manage our own affairs. We do not need things to be done to us, and we can show that we have a responsibility for the work that we do. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and I think that is the point to end on: if it is not led by us, it will be led by those who know less and care less. We have a responsibility.

Direction of Government

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point-scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“last thing investors wanted to hear”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

“a weariness in the heart of a nation”.

I agree that there is a yearning:

“For change. For national renewal”.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord Laming

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, today I pay tribute to Lord Laming. His lifetime of public service has left an indelible mark on the whole fabric of British social work, public management and the very conscience of our nation. Herbert’s journey into the public sphere began with a deeply practical grounding, dedicating 20 years to Hertfordshire County Council and ultimately serving as director of social services, before rising to become Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate from 1991 to 1998.

However, it was his subsequent work on the national stage that elevated him into the public consciousness as a fearless seeker of accountability. Following the tragic death of eight year-old Victoria Climbié, the Government turned to Lord Laming to chair the landmark inquiry, in which he diagnosed a yawning gap between policy aspiration and front-line delivery. He famously observed that protecting a child

“needed nothing more than a manager doing their job by asking pertinent questions”.

His work directly laid the foundations for the Every Child Matters framework in the Children Act 2004. Years later, following the tragedy of baby P, he was called on once more to deliver an urgent national review, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to ensuring that the child’s welfare remains paramount.

Since entering this House in 1998, Herbert Laming was a pillar of the Cross Benches. His parliamentary peers recognised his fairness and integrity by electing him Convener of the Cross Benches from 2011 to 2015, followed by a distinguished tenure as Chairman of Committees. He spent decades reminding us that policies are only as good as their front-line execution. He combined a razor-sharp administrative intellect with a deeply compassionate heart. We owe him a debt of gratitude for forcing our country to look closer, to act more quickly and to better protect some of the most innocent and vulnerable in society. His legacy will endure for generations, and we remember him as a man of great generosity, spirit and decency—and as good company. We had many chats in my office, and I will always remember him first and foremost as a great friend. I know he is going to be sorely missed across your Lordships’ House, but weren’t we lucky to have him here with us? We send our deepest and most heartfelt condolences to all his family and friends.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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


telling young professionals that

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

Business of the House

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the order paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 July to enable the motion standing in the name of Lord True to be taken before the motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is an unusual Motion. The last example—which was much more far-reaching and prescriptive—was a Motion personally introduced by the Leader of the House in 2019. Frankly, in many ways, this is an undesirable Motion. It should not be left to any other party in this House to ensure that time is given for a Government to be held to account—a point made vehemently by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is the duty of a Leader of the House—who, we are all very pleased to see, survived a vicious night of the long knives in the Labour Party—to enable scrutiny of government policies. While the noble Baroness has survived, may I say how sad we are to see so many outstanding Ministers in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Timpson; the noble Lord, Lord Livermore; the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who, as we have just heard, was felled with his whole department; the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; and so many others—leaving the Government? We thank them all for their service to the House and to this country.

Before anyone gets too excited about all this, let me tell the House that all this Motion asks for is that the new Government should allow a short take-note debate tomorrow to answer to Parliament on their policies. There will be no vote and nobody’s holiday will be interfered with, whatever the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms might tell people afterwards. It would be an opportunity for the Government to set out the policies of which the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has just said they are so proud. If the Leader of the House tells the House that she will give adequate time for debate and scrutiny in Parliament on the new Government’s strategy and all their new announcements tomorrow, and indeed all this week, then I can withdraw my Motion.

These are unprecedented circumstances. Only once before in the whole of British history, in 1963, has a Prime Minister taken office having not put himself before the British people at the previous general election—and, what is more, during a recess of the House of Commons. All recent Prime Ministers taking office in similar circumstances have made themselves available to Parliament. Contrast that with the new Prime Minister’s convenient entry to No. 10 on the first working day after the Commons had adjourned for the Summer Recess, and the unseemly finagling of changing Commons business to deprive the Opposition of our scheduled Opposition day debate, for fear that we might vote for the House of Commons to sit this week and hold the Prime Minister to account. Having suppressed scrutiny by the Commons last week, is this now to be followed by imposing a Whip—I thought we had heard that Mr Burnham did not like Whips—to suppress scrutiny of the Government in this place? It looks as though the Prime Minister is bending over backwards to avoid telling Parliament what his plans are.

However, yesterday, outside Parliament, while Parliament was sitting here, he declared grandiloquently that he would be

“a circuit breaker for Britain, bringing forward the biggest changes in the last forty years … A new political model”—

one that, incidentally, includes putting someone who resigned on a propriety and ethics issue in charge of propriety and ethics, and putting someone who resigned over a housing issue in charge of housing. I have heard of thumbing the nose at the so-called establishment, but there are points when it can look a little rich.

The Cabinet met earlier today to discuss the Government’s new ideas. The noble Baroness the Leader was there. So can your Lordships’ House—can this Parliament, sitting here in this place—not be told the barest outline of this new political model, the new economic model and the 10-year plan? For example, will tax overall go up or will it come down? Will welfare spending rise or will it be cut? What is the fiscal strategy? Already, the Government have talked or briefed outside Parliament about cutting energy bills, lifting the personal tax allowance, nationalising Thames Water, the biggest council house programme since the war, giving mayors more funding, creating a national care service, more overseas aid, cutting student loan repayments, more employment support and ending homelessness.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, but where is the money coming from? Noble Lords opposite are not so noisy now. Can the Leader shed any light on all this? Can she say which of this list are commitments and which are just backstairs smooching of the media and, it seems, some Back-Benchers? After all, she was there in Cabinet this morning.

The Ministerial Code is unequivocal. It states:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”.


Why has that not been happening? We need Statements here and we need answers. I ask the Leader, on behalf of the whole House, to ensure that that happens. Where, for example, is a Statement on ending rough sleeping, which has actually risen in Manchester in the last few years? The media were told this morning that the Government will pause VAT on electricity—ironically, by using our Brexit freedoms. I thought Mr Burnham wanted to end those freedoms. Why was this not announced in Parliament before the media were briefed? We have not seen even Written Statements on these announcements. I gather that one on VAT was issued moments ago, while we were considering the PNQ. I wonder how many Members of this House have had the opportunity to see it. I echo what my noble friend Lord Deben said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord True, and thank those Ministers who have served in government and have now left government. Their service has been exemplary, they have all been dedicated and hard-working and we are grateful for their continued support and wish them well. I welcome the fact that my noble friend the Chief Whip has been reappointed. It is not necessarily the greatest secret of the House at the moment, but we look forward to working with him. I look forward to working with him as well, and I thank him for his comments about my reappointment to the Cabinet.

At the start of this Session, in the King’s Speech, we, as group leaders, pledged and spoke of a reset, returning to our usual ways of working in a collegiate and productive way that best benefits this House and the work that we are entrusted to undertake. As a matter of clarity—I know that the Chief Whips have spoken outside—yesterday’s Motion was tabled at around 5 pm. I later went down to see the Leader of the Opposition. When I first tried to speak to him, I was told that he was unavailable to speak to me, although he realised within a few minutes that that was not a good idea and came down. I am grateful to him for that, although it was not, as the noble Lord knows, the most productive conversation.

[Lord True (Con)]

For clarity, I had no knowledge that the Leader of the House had been told that. Of course, as soon as I heard that she had been told that, I came immediately down to the corridor, as she has just acknowledged. There was no question whatever of my refusing to see the Leader of the House on any occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Okay, 9 pm. I have to say, given what was said—we all agreed on how we would say this when we had the King’s Speech—I was a bit surprised and, as I say, disappointed that there was no consultation, discussion, engagement or even notice from the noble Lord. There was no request for a Statement. There was no discussion to say, “Have we got any plans this week for a debate? Would we like to do that?” The first we knew about it was a Motion being tabled. There was no attempt at all to seek to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord in any of the ways to which we committed when we had the debate on the King’s Speech. I must say to the noble Lord that I really thought that we had made some progress then.

As the noble Lord said, business Motions moved by the Opposition are not unprecedented, but they are extremely rare. Only twice in recent history have the Opposition attempted to take control of the Order Paper in this way, and doing so was very much opposed then by the noble Lord opposite. Lord Richard did it in 1996, about 30 years ago, in response to the Scott report. I did something similar in 2019, reflecting a Motion that had been tabled in the House of Commons in relation to Brexit; I hope that none of us would want to return to those bad-tempered days of debate. Fortunately—particularly for the party opposite, including the noble Lord and his predecessors—this has never happened before with a change of Prime Minister.

I completely agree with, and have always committed to, the idea that the House should be given ample opportunity to scrutinise the Government. However, in politics, as in life, patience is a virtue. This is day 2 of a new Prime Minister. The Government are still being formed; we saw an appointment just now. Of course, we will welcome scrutiny—Ministers will come to this House and Parliament will do its job in scrutinising the work of the new Government—but this Motion is unnecessary. It is not the way this House does business. There have not been any extensive policy changes at this point, and the Prime Minister has committed to move forward on the basis of the manifesto on which this party was elected at the 2024 election.

On an issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this morning, the Prime Minister announced a targeted intervention on VAT to help with the cost of living. Today, a Written Ministerial Statement was laid to update the House on these matters, and a topical Oral Question on Thursday relates to these matters. Further, in the autumn, noble Lords will have to scrutinise the regulations that give effect to the policy. That is hardly dodging scrutiny.

I have also laid a Written Ministerial Statement today to inform Parliament of the machinery of government changes that have taken place, and my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent has answered a PNQ on the topic. My point is that the scrutiny of government is continuing. We have a number of Bills before us which also deserve scrutiny, Oral Questions to be asked, Statements to be repeated and replied to, and yesterday 10 Private Notice Questions were tabled—an exceptional number. General debates will take place on Thursday, and we will continue to lay Written Ministerial Statements as required. If this Motion were carried, it would be put at risk a full day of business tomorrow and continued scrutiny of legislation that this House presumably considers important.

The Prime Minister has been very clear: he takes Parliament seriously. I can tell the noble Lord—[Interruption.] It is no good the party opposite making those comments. It is day two of a new Prime Minister, and I would like to have a considered response from him and for the House fully and properly to debate proposals when he brings them forward. As a parliamentarian of nearly 30 years who has been on the Front Bench—in government and in opposition—for over 25 years, I hope that noble Lords recognise my commitment to the work of this House and to scrutiny of government. Rest assured, we will not seek to evade or avoid scrutiny of our Government’s policies, because we will be proud of those policies as they are drafted and brought forward for further discussion.

This Prime Minister did not set the timing for the change of leadership. The Prime Minister did not set the timing for the recess dates. The noble Lord tabled his Motion yesterday. He has known for some time now—it has not exactly been a state secret—when the new Prime Minister was taking office. Procedures such as this should be used only in rare and unprecedented times. The party opposite has ensured that a change of party leader between elections is certainly not unprecedented. I urge noble Lords not to accept this Motion. But, whatever the outcome, can we rise above some of the rancour today, which was unnecessary? I wish all noble Lords a restful Summer Recess, and I look forward to further scrutiny in September.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reciprocate the noble Baroness’s last words and wish that to all Members of this House. This House works extremely hard and certainly merits the time off it will have. I also agree with her—I said this at the outset of my speech—that these things are exceptional. The noble Baroness put forward a Motion of this kind at the time of the debate over prorogation, which was pretty well unprecedented. As I explained in my speech, it is unprecedented—apart from in 1963—for a change of this kind to take place when the House of Commons is not sitting. That is the case for your Lordships’ House being given the opportunity to debate these questions. I do value good relations with the noble Baroness, and if by that incident or anything else—by sin of commission or omission—she has been disobliged, I apologise for that.

Returning to the debate, we had 10 minutes from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I do not really know what he was on about for most of that time. He certainly was not relentless for accountability: he was as relentless as a limp rag when it came to criticism of the Government. He certainly fell below the standard of the time. As far as the party opposite are concerned, what are they so worried about? A short three-hour debate tomorrow would not interfere with any holiday plans. Mr Burnham says that he wants to bring back hope. That must be more than an admission of the hopelessness of two years of Keir Starmer, his Government and their huge toll on business and jobs. It must be an expression of confidence, as we have heard from others, that his policies are better. So why are they so afraid to debate them here, in Parliament, now, when the time is right?

This House is a House of scrutiny, and I believe we should assert our right to be informed and to be heard. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is with a profound sense of sadness, shared across the House, that I pay tribute today to one of the truly monumental figures of our nation’s legal and parliamentary heritage. The news of the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, shortly before his 100th birthday, is deeply felt by us all.

James Mackay was a man of towering intellect, yet he was defined equally by his quiet humility, his deep faith, an unwavering commitment to public service and great generosity of spirit. Born the son of a railway signalman in Edinburgh, his journey to the highest legal offices of state is a testament to his extraordinary talent, rising to become dean of the Faculty of Advocates before serving with distinction as Lord Advocate. His deep grounding in Scottish law brought a rigorous, analytical clarity to everything he did—a perspective that enriched the entire jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.

In 1987, Margaret Thatcher broke with centuries of tradition by appointing a Scottish lawyer as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. For a decade, serving in both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments, Lord Mackay occupied the Woolsack with a quiet, revolutionary authority. He was an historic, modernising Lord Chancellor. He shepherded the Children Act 1989 through this House and on to the statute book. It was a piece of legislation that radically reshaped family law, firmly establishing that a child’s welfare is the courts’ paramount consideration. That has stood the test of time.

Although Lord Mackay never sought conflict, he was never afraid of controversy, if he believed it served the public good. He introduced pioneering reforms to the legal profession that expanded access to justice for millions. Yet for all his grand achievements on the national stage, he retained that gentle humanity and his characteristic warmth and friendliness. Whether it was a word in passing in the corridors of your Lordships’ House or pulling up a chair for lunch in the Long Room, you would welcome his company. Like many others, I would listen in admiration, and often awe, when he spoke in the Chamber or in Committee. He would speak without notes, always making insightful and pertinent comments, perfectly crafted—and delightfully concise.

When Lord Mackay retired from this House in July 2022, after more than four decades of dedicated service, it said so much about his character that he did not use his final remarks to dwell solely on the great offices of state or the complex legislation he had championed. Instead, he drew our attention to the Prayers that begin our proceedings each day, stating:

“I believe that I have been sustained until now by answers to what we pray for at our opening every day”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 1984.]


That was the essence of James Mackay. He possessed a mind capable of mastering the most intricate complexities of constitutional law, with a heart that saw, valued and respected every individual who contributed to the life of Parliament.

Lord Mackay was a giant of the law, a faithful servant of the Crown and a deeply cherished Member of this House. We send our deepest, most heartfelt condolences to his family—his wife Bett and his son and daughters—his friends, his colleagues and all those who knew and loved him. He will be sorely missed.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her warm tribute to our late beloved friend and colleague, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When I say “our” beloved colleague, I mean all of us—all here who knew him and heard him for over 40 years as a Member of this House. I can think of few, if any, Peers who were so sincerely liked and admired on all sides as was James Mackay.

The noble Baroness set out some of his extraordinary achievements: dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Advocate, a Scottish Law Lord, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Chancellor for 10 years, a Knight of the Thistle and latterly honoured by his Queen as Lord Clerk Register of Scotland. Never were such a string of great garlands laid on the brow of a more humble man—not only humble in origin, though he was that, but a man of abiding humility, as our Leader said. Pomposity and pride were utterly alien to him, in the being or seeing of them.

The core of Lord Mackay’s life was the Bible and that higher power on which he long and regularly reflected. He observed the Lord’s day. When I was new in No. 10, I remember Switch explaining to me not only that you should not ring the Lord Chancellor on a Sunday but that you could not—the line would stay dead. His deep Christian faith moulded a bedrock of principle. As our Leader said, he never sought conflict, but he did not flinch from difficulties if the cause was just. As she said, as the first member of the Scottish Bar ever to sit on the Woolsack he set out to break restrictive practices in the law and open access to justice to more people. It did not make him popular, but he saw it through. Among his many legislative achievements were not only the Children Act, to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which brought clarity—like the Children Act—in difficult fields of morality and law.

Lord Mackay never intended to be a lawyer. He had the rare distinction of first class degrees in maths from both Edinburgh and Cambridge, where he was the senior wrangler—which was an achievement—and he taught maths before reading for the Bar. This was testament to the extraordinary clarity and precision of James Mackay’s mind, and his unerring ability to discern the truth of arguments and determine solutions: the very essence of a good judge. Yet how lightly he carried his great wisdom and learning, always expressed in the simplest language, spoken softly, as the noble Baroness said, and with the most beguiling humour. He had unimpeachable integrity and a fierce independence of mind which, perhaps, was his highland character. He graced that great office of Lord Chancellor, speaking truth and justice to power in the Cabinet, defending the rule of law and presiding in this House.

Lord Mackay was a kindly man, generous in his advice to others, courteous to a fault, with a twinkle in his eye and a quizzical air that made you feel, perhaps, that he was puzzled that others could not see the solutions as swiftly as he did. After he went to the Back Benches, he used to sit on the second row, behind the Minister. When you were at the Dispatch Box and you saw by your shoulder that hand creeping over the back of the Bench to haul himself to his feet, you knew you were in for either the most testing challenge to your arguments from one of your friends, or else the most simple and compelling exposition of the case that you had been floundering for an hour to try to explain to the House.

James Mackay was a great parliamentarian, a lover of this place and loved by it. Let us remember our brother as a righteous man. He was never judgmental, but nor was he afraid to judge between good and evil. He was a great reformer and a loving family man, buoyed for 68 years by his remarkable wife and three children, to whom our prayers and sympathy go out. This polity, this House, this United Kingdom will never see the like of Lord Chancellor Mackay again.

G7 Summit

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

We are supporting families with the summer savings package, so that they can spend time together this August. We are banning social media for children to keep them safe, lifting half a million people out of poverty, boosting workers’ rights and renters’ rights, and bringing down NHS waiting lists at the highest rate for 17 years. This Government are focused on what really matters: serving the national interest and delivering for the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for being here to answer questions on this Statement. In these uncertain times, I wish her well for continuation in office—and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who has run away but I hope will be back.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord True (Con)]

The Statement was made by someone who did not attend the summit and in the absence of the Prime Minister—a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in Downing Street, “them’s the breaks”. Many unkind things were said back then about my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was “a good day”, one allegedly impartial former official deplorably gloated. I will not follow the road of rejoicing in another’s downfall. I place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this Statement claimed. Indeed, can the Minister tell us why on earth he is going if everything is as amazing as the Statement says?

At the summit, Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support that he has given to Ukraine, so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr Johnson. We support that stand and will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Home to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we do not have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir’s resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity. The same old Labour, with tax and spend policies that were out of date even in the 1970s, will deliver the same dismal outcomes.

We are told in the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain safer and rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world. Really? Endless delays to the defence investment plan have not made us safer. With continued instability in the Middle East, war in Europe and an increasingly reckless Russia, any further delay in the defence investment plan is unacceptable. Can the noble Baroness tell us today when it will be published?

The stunning resignations of the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister did not enhance our reputation in the world. Two principled men, actually the best of the Labour Party, laid bare a bitter truth—their view, not ours—that a Government overdosing on welfare spending were unable or unwilling to find money for defence. It is a shambles. What on earth will the Prime Minister tell NATO on 7 July?

Mr Carns in his statement was also devastating about the injustice of the legal pursuit of our Northern Ireland Army veterans and the folly of the so-called remedial order. That was being rushed forward so the Prime Minister could offer up our compliance with the ECHR at the so-called EU reset summit. That has now been delayed, so can the noble Baroness tell the House that that vindictive order will also be shelved?

We welcome good news in the Statement on foreign direct investment from France, India and Japan. We welcome the free trade agreement with India. This is the Britain we want, opening to the wider world. But foreign direct investment cannot offset the devastating impact of Labour’s domestic policies. If we want real growth, the next Prime Minister must change course.

Change in terms of security is needed too to Mr Miliband’s obsessive pursuit of net zero. Did the House notice the outcome of the election in Aberdeen South? Working people want our North Sea open. Working people want to exploit our own energy resources and the jobs the oil and gas industry brings. We have heard it here from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and others. We have heard it from the secretary-general of Unite. For once, they and we are united in a common-sense cause: we must open the North Sea.

Speaking of common sense, I think the noble Baroness knows how pleased we are that this House stopped the disastrous Chagos deal. Did the Prime Minister try to resurrect this in any way at the summit, or is this turkey now dead?

We hope progress in the US-Iran talks will end barriers to free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We all want peace in the Middle East, but we must not soften our stance on the murderous regime in Tehran. We have been far too slow to take action on the IRGC, although I welcome steps now being undertaken. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we will remain in lockstep with our US allies in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon? Can she tell us when the Franco-British action in the Gulf and the strait will begin?

We agree that more should be done to ensure civilian aid gets through in Gaza and indeed Lebanon; it must flow more smoothly. But we are also clear in our view that Israel had and has a right to defend itself. Was I alone in thinking it truly astonishing that, in 360 words on the Middle East in this Statement, there was not a single word of condemnation of terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Hamas? Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Israel must tone down what he called “inflammatory language”. What are they supposed to say of the butchers of Jewish babies?

On illegal immigration, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to build on our 2018 Sandhurst agreement with France, and we welcome that. In contrast, this Government’s so-called one-in, one-out policy had to be rewritten after illegal migrants once removed returned to the UK. Can the noble Baroness tell us how many criminal gangs have been smashed?

Finally, the Statement referred with regret to the 10th anniversary of Brexit. Some people, it seems, will never accept the verdict of the British people or own that the fast first Covid vaccine, the free trade deal with India we have just heard about, the summer holidays VAT measure and so much else would never have been possible without that vote. I must test the tolerance of the House by declaring I voted for our freedom to choose our own destiny 10 years ago, and I would do so again. We need to look to the future, not plunge back to past battles. I wish the next Prime Minister well, but it is not a change of Prime Minister that this country needs, it is a change of Government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing this Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. Self-evidently, I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it is a great—and unusual—pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand-in should be making this speech, as the original speech was also made by a stand-in in the other place. As a result, this Statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting.

Starting with Ukraine, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit on the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the full invasion started. What this hit on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles. Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The Statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established a 25 kilometre-plus wide kill zone, through which the Russians are finding progress has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they face from ballistic missiles and the need for more anti-ballistic defence. Russia has thousands of missiles that have yet to be fired. Europe has responded to some extent to that plea for help, but following the Iran conflict, defence systems are at a premium. It was clear from my visit 10 days ago to the factory in the USA where Patriot missiles are manufactured that the global shortage of such defensive weapons will be only very slowly filled—too slow for the Ukrainian people.

That is why anything we do in Europe to work together to design and manufacture alternative defence systems is really important. In the short term, it would help Ukraine; in the medium term, it would help the Baltic states and the rest of Europe. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in sourcing European anti-ballistic weapons? She may need to write to me with that answer.

Sanctions also remain important. Given the seeming changes to the Middle East, when will the Government hurry up and apply sanctions to Russian-refined jet fuel? Also, did the Government raise at the G7 the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine? If not, why not?

Turning to the Middle East, the Statement offers no new information. The key question is how any international coalition with the French can possibly operate safely when we are only a Truth Social posting away from a deadly flare-up. What is the government thinking on that? I am sure fellow Peers will have noted comments from the Iranians about tolls through the Strait of Hormuz. That was to be expected, but President Trump has been publicly musing on levying fees to protect tankers. Both options are equally unacceptable and have been reinforced overnight. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the US ambassador has been made aware that we do not support any such protection racket as that proposed by President Trump?

It is clear that the situations in Lebanon and Gaza remain unacceptable to the people living there, and destabilising to any possible settlement with Iran. The Statement says that bringing all partners together is the Government’s aim. Can the Minister please update your Lordships House on any actions that have been taken to bring people together in the last few months?

It is disappointing but typical that the terrible conflict in Sudan seems to have been ignored again.

On illegal migration, I would only note that, were we once again to have full access to all the policing and immigration data we used to have before Brexit, the number of boats would more likely fall to their low level before we left the European Union.

That swiftly moves us on to the final part of the Statement, on growth and investment. Speaking nine months ago, before he was burdened with any realistic chance of leadership, Andy Burnham openly referred to Brexit as a disaster and blamed it for making aspirations harder to achieve in Britain. He revealed his wish to see the UK rejoin at some point, but it was reported that he remained pragmatic about how long this would take.

Once Andy Burnham moves his bandwagon into No. 10 Downing Street and opens the books, he will see the full extent of the damage done to the life chances of ordinary people thanks to Brexit. At that point, I suggest his truly pragmatic action would be to accelerate things. I invite him to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ plan for the UK to join the customs union and re-enter the single market. We would be very willing to help him if he wishes to do that. Instead of urgency, however, everything is on hold. Yesterday’s events have caused the UK-EU summit planned for 22 July to be postponed. Does the Lord Privy Seal share my disappointment that even the partial progress expected from that summit is now delayed? Does she agree that the sooner we act to get closer to our real allies in the EU, the better the chances for growth and the more secure the United Kingdom will be?

Senior Deputy Speaker

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on his appointment.

In doing so, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble. His has been dedicated work and service to this House to fulfil the role of Senior Deputy Speaker. His thoughtfulness and natural courtesy have meant that he has fulfilled his responsibility with great judgment and fairness. All of us across the House have felt valued and supported by him, and we all greatly appreciate the work he has done: from carrying out his duties on the Woolsack and supporting the dedicated group of Deputy Speakers, to overseeing the vital work of this House and its committees with a clear mission. Noble Lords across the House will remember his work in answering Written Questions, indeed all questions, on a wide range of topics, including fire safety, the Victoria Tower project, R&R and the use of cats to catch House of Lords mice—a frequent point of interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has chaired the Procedure and Privileges Committee with sensitivity and ensured that updates to the Companion reflect the current world in which we work. I think I am correct in saying we never had to vote on an issue; he always sought to reach consensus. He has provided invaluable contributions to the House of Lords Commission and the R&R committee—he might miss one less than the other—and has been a source of calm and clarity on complex matters, bringing the voices of noble Lords from across the House to these important platforms. On a personal level, I have valued his wisdom, his judgment and his friendship. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our warmest and best wishes for the future as he returns to the Back Benches.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

King’s Speech

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, how nice it is to see our House without those railings today. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the wise and witty speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham. The noble Lord, Lord Roe, has had a brave and remarkable career of public service, which he was too modest to speak about, but his words only reinforce the great respect in which he is already held here. He was, among other things, a distinguished boxing champion. Perhaps if there is the risk of too many rounds of ping-pong this Session, the noble Baroness the Leader might send him to sort us out or maybe lift us out.

As for the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I had the honour of serving with her on your Lordships’ Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Committee. She mentioned some differences that we occasionally have, but frankly I have been puzzled that no Government have ever picked up our joint recommendation to scrap the triple lock. However, it was good to hear in her speech today a little bit more about apprenticeships. The noble Baroness is the very model of sound sense and good reason, worn with wit, lightness and charm, as we heard today—and that is what your Lordships’ House is all about.

On the previous of these occasions, I began by congratulating the party opposite on its historic electoral success. I might leave that bit out this time. It is stormy weather today. I noticed that it was hailing this morning. It only rained on Rishi Sunak. What I can tell your Lordships is that I have paid my council tax, I never worked for the Red Cross, I never worked for the Ministry of Justice, and could not afford a Lamborghini to rev up fossil fuel in the faces of my Green electors. I have also never taken a £5 million cheque from a dodgy foreign donor over a fag and a pint.

To be serious for a moment, as Leader of the Opposition I cannot ignore the large gaps left on these Benches and the Cross Benches by the expulsion of dozens of our colleagues. We do miss them. Although we have welcome news that a minority will return, 1,784 years of experience have been lost to our House. It was a mighty rent and, in many ways, hurtful. It will be hard to forget, particularly with the huge threat of further expulsions hanging over the older Members in our House. We really must think very carefully about how far we let this process of expulsions go. We now have a Bill to remove peerages in the gracious Speech. I suppose we will have to call it “Peter’s law”. We will need to look very carefully at the details of that Bill too—its scope, its criteria and who decides, lest it ever become a licence for the social media lynch mob.

The heart rather sinks at No. 10 boasting about 37 Bills and draft Bills this Session. This is quite unbelievable. Too much legislation equates directly to too many demands on this House and long days that nobody wants on either side of this Chamber. Can the Leader confirm, when she winds up, how many of these Bills will start in this House?

I want to say something about procedure, because the great principle of our constitution is that the King’s Government must be carried on, if not quite like the “Carry On” film it has been in the last few days. The last Session was sometimes fractious, although the genuine good will in the usual channels, led by the noble Baroness, which I greatly appreciate, generally helped us through. However great the turnover of our Members, we must all try to preserve the ancient courtesies of this House. We are a House of self-regulation, and with that must go a high degree of self-restraint. The House values not the quantity of speeches but rather their quality, like the two we have heard today. Less is often more, except when it comes to good humour and focused, non-repetitive argument. The Companion must always be respected, and I support the initiative of our Leader in sending out what we hope will be a useful aide-memoire on some key points of behaviour.

I started the last Session by saying that having been on the receiving end of a record pounding in the number of defeats and amount of ping-pong from the party opposite, I hoped that the era of repetitive ping-pong would be over. Well, I confess that it did not always quite work out that way in the last Session, but I recommit to that objective, and this must be a reciprocal effort. Governments are entitled to legislation in due time—always via agreement, one hopes—but we need fewer, shorter, better-drafted Bills from all Governments. Massive, sprawling Bills inevitably spawn sprawling Committee stages. We also need, in other parts of the House, careful thought as to the range of amendments and restraint from all in repeating at length arguments made in detail in Committee or, for heaven’s sake, summing up at length what we have already heard.

We could also, and we dedicate ourselves to this, improve engagement in this House to settle lesser issues here, perhaps, in my submission, by better use of Third Reading and the time between Report and Third Reading. Far too often in recent years, minor issues have gone to ping-pong but could have been settled here earlier, and were settled. It is also important, I must tell my colleagues, that we adhere to the long-held principles of the Salisbury/Addison convention and, where we can, reinforce them. A manifesto Bill, however ludicrous or damaging it may seem to others, has a special status and should not be wrecked or voted down in this House. We on this side pledge to continue constructive discussions in the usual channels on these and related topics, but I will always fiercely defend the unique freedoms of this House—it is these that have made it the best revising Chamber in the world.

The gracious Speech was a bit disappointing. A good point is that there was no Chagos Bill. The bad points were more borrowing, no savings and—two serious points—no provision for defence, on which the noble Lord opposite was quite right, and no welfare reform, where we on this side have offered to work cross-party together. Those offers still remain. What an extraordinary time it is in politics when we have moved in under two years from the most crushing electoral victory to the most devastating political defeat. Even the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, cannot blame that on his predecessors. I see that the noble Lord is getting his old boss, Gordon Brown, back to help him. I thought our global envoy to the markets was called the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I wonder what she has done wrong.

I am always encouraged when a Prime Minister in trouble sends for people even older than me, but where is the future here? Instead, the Prime Minister wants to take us back to the past with a Bill that will be a massive Henry VIII power to reverse the decision of the British people to choose freedom from Brussels. He says that doing this will be the defining measure of his time in office. Did he perhaps not notice the repeated verdict of people in the north, the Midlands, and the east of England in the recent elections? I do not think that the hopes of the people of Barnsley were for more freedom of movement or more wrangling with unelected civil servants in Brussels about what can be called marmalade or Yorkshire pudding. The future of Britain is in trading in the wider, fast-growing world, not going backwards to tight linkage to the weakest and slowest-growing part of the world economy.

The gracious Speech promised a criminal justice Bill. Oh dear—yet another Home Office Bill for the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. At least he is being paid now, but my heart sinks. This Bill will

“deliver services the British people expect”.

This is the spin. I can firmly say that there is one service in criminal justice that the free people of this country have expected since the time of Magna Carta, and it is the right to trial by jury. Blocking jury trial was never threatened in any manifesto, and this side will exercise the full freedoms of the House to defend it.

We are also promised an energy independence Bill. We support the wider use of nuclear power, but the Bill promises more spending, more regulation and more pylons. That is not what people want. How can we be independent without the use of fossil fuels? We will seek to amend the Bill to open up drilling in the North Sea, support the Scottish economy and save the jobs of thousands of skilled workers.

We are also promised steel nationalisation—another blast from the past. That will not change the brutal economics of this great industry. Instead of pouring more and more borrowed billions into this, should we not be helping it and other vital heavy industries by stopping the crazed levies and taxes that have given the UK the highest energy costs in the world and destroyed jobs?

The gracious Speech talks of using

“the power of an active State”

to intervene in business, but the truth of the matter is that business and small businesses up and down the land are already reeling from misguided government regulation and bludgeoning taxes. Far too many of the measures in the Speech go back to the past. We on this side have put forward a costed set of serious alternative proposals on which we would have acted. We will try to inject their spirit into every measure in this programme.

The Government talk of answering the hopes of the British people. The British people said what they hoped for last Thursday, and it was an end to more of the same under a divided party and a floundering leadership. On one thing, however, I most vehemently agree: we need the “values of decency” and we need the lamp of faith. I trust that we all agree on the most urgent, condign action to eliminate the scourge of antisemitism that is a stain on our free society. I promise the noble Baroness that, on this and other things, wherever we can, we will work together across the Chamber. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

House of Lords: Legislative Procedures

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, before answering this Question I looked with some care at the recommendations from the Goodlad committee, and a number were not accepted at the time, including that Ministers should be able to answer Questions in either House, that the Lord Privy Seal should have a dedicated Question Time, and that there should be a more proactive role for the Lord Speaker. Those did not find favour with the House at that time—I hesitate to look at the Lord Speaker’s face at this point.

The issue of how we use our time is really important, and I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the next report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee—which I think is coming to the House on Thursday—about using time. The committee is recommending from all parties that we look at the time we spend debating SIs and that some extra time be available in Grand Committee, including, where required, a sitting that would start on Tuesday mornings. It is not about curtailing or extending time; let us use the time we have as effectively as we possibly can. The other thing I am keen to do is give certainty to Members about when business is happening and how long business will take, because that helps Members participate.

[Lord True (Con)]

I understand the principle behind the Question; there is too much repetitive talk in this House, often between different stages. But that is a matter for restraint on all sides. Will the noble Baroness opposite accept that I welcome very much the initiatives that she has been taking in the usual channels, and I support them in all defined ways to make our proceedings more expedient and work well for everybody? Will she also support the principle that I held to when I was Leader: not to seek in any way to limit the freedoms of individual Members in this House to exercise their rights? It is through those freedoms, not shared by MPs, that this House has become the great revising Chamber that it is.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not seek to curtail freedoms. I do not know whether there is anything specific the noble Lord has in mind. In a House that is self-regulating, we also seek self-restraint. That self-restraint is something that the whole House wants. The certainty for Members that the House is run in an orderly way—which was part of the point of our discussions in the usual channels this morning—is important. It is beholden on the whole House, as well as the leadership of the House, to ensure that Members abide by the conventions and do not feel they are something we can bypass when we feel like it.

Security Vetting

Lord True 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.