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.

Middle East

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

As the Middle East conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


We agree with him.

On 2 March I also said:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her introduction to this Bill and for her very clear explanation of it; I can confirm that I support it and I can therefore be brief.

As most of the House who have followed this will know—the noble Baroness alluded to this—I have form on the matter. When I became Leader of the House in 2022, I found it absolutely astonishing that in the 21st century we had a statutory position where, practically, in one of our Houses of Parliament in many circumstances people had to have private means to become a Minister. There have always been wealthy people who have been willing to do this signal public service for nothing. They still exist, and I of course salute them for their public spirit in doing that. Some on my side, when I was Leader, made great personal sacrifices, for which I once told the House I was ashamed to ask them, and for which I was beyond appreciation when I saw them ready to make those sacrifices.

However, the converse of that appreciation is that it cannot ever be right that those who do not have the means cannot serve this country as a Minister because a post is unpaid. I said from the Front Bench, both in office and in opposition, that I believe this matter must be addressed. Whenever we discussed it, there was widespread support for the principle, and I think that was found when my predecessors also tried to address the matter. But there was always a reason not to act, and not only in my time but before.

I think I have told the House that, when I tried to get something in a Bill such as this when I was Leader in the 2023-24 Session, I was told by my own very senior colleagues that it would “cause comment”—perhaps we were approaching an election or something. When I tried to address the matter by different means, ensuring at least that senior unpaid figures on both the Government and Opposition Front Benches, such as a Foreign Office Minister and leading shadow spokesman, might be allowed deemed attendance when they were out of London, perhaps on related business, this was disagreed to by senior figures then in the Labour Party on the basis, as I was told, that Labour would have fewer Ministers and so it would not be necessary. It has not quite worked out that way and it was never really going to. As the noble Baroness explained, this position has grown and persisted for decades.

The number of unpaid Lords Front-Benchers, which rose as high as 13—or maybe even 14—in my time is still at least 11, as advertised currently on the GOV.UK list of Ministers. It would be invidious to list those names, but they include some of the most hard-working and respected Members on the Front Bench opposite, just as they did under our Government.

This Bill could bring that inherent unfairness in public life to a close. I hope that, when the noble Baroness responds, she will undertake that it will do precisely that—she said it would largely do it; I understand there may be transitional reasons why that might not be possible. But I affirm that public office in the 21st century must be open to all.

The Bill allows the total number of paid Ministers, as the noble Baroness explained, to rise to 120 against the current 109. The existing limit on the scale of patronage in the other place set by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as she explained, remains unchanged at 95. So if the Commons end, if I may put it thus—or the other place, or the patronage secretary—still decides that the House of Commons Members should take up all their potential places, the number of Lords Ministers allowed to be paid by statute will rise from 14 under the present system to 25 under the revised system brought in by the Bill.

The noble Baroness alluded to the fact that that is still a ratio of nearly four to one between this House and the other place. I do not wish to disparage anyone, because I had an uphill struggle with my own colleagues, and I make no disparagement of the Government because they are addressing the point, but over the years I have sometimes wondered whether some of our colleagues at the other end actually know the burdens on Ministers in this House, the revising Chamber, and the amount of continuous work that arises, for example, from our less regimented system of organising Questions and the clear and penetrating scrutiny of Bills.

I said I would not name names, but I look at people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, who carries out what I think we would all acknowledge is one of the hardest jobs in government, carrying the Home Office brief in your Lordships’ House, and I remember my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, whom the House was praising not long ago, and who was a truly outstanding Minister of State in the Foreign Office and an indefatigable traveller in service of his country. Those people need to be properly recognised. Many might and could contend that the real answer would of course be to restrain the growing size of the payroll in the other place. It does not need to be 95—it has not always been 95—but that is not on offer currently, and therefore I feel that in the interests of the whole House we should proceed as the noble Baroness suggests in the Bill.

I was very grateful for the support that Members across the House, as the noble Baroness reminded us, gave to an amendment which I moved during the passage of the House of Lords Act earlier this Session. I recognise that it was not actually practical in its explicit effect, but it was designed to allow this House to express a view and perhaps force the other place to consider this issue. That has been done, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that I have had on this with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, both when I was in government and now in opposition. I hope that we can continue to give positive consideration to issues that arise from the burdens on various Front Benches in this House.

However, setting that aside, for the interim I welcome the Bill. It ends a long-standing injustice, it opens doors that should never have been closed, and I ask my colleagues on this side to give it a fair wind in the full spirit of respect and sensible co-operation across this Chamber for which I will always stand.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, on 24 July last year, I informed the House that Simon Burton had announced his intention of retiring from the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April this year. In November, I announced that Chloe Mawson would become his successor. I indicated at the time that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Simon, and I am pleased to do so today.

The position of the Clerk of the Parliaments has a long and proud history. I know that Simon felt privileged to be in post as the 20th holder of that office on the 200th anniversary of the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824—although in 1824 the role was very different from that of today.

Since Simon joined your Lordships’ House in January 1988, over 38 years ago, he has been dedicated in every role he has held. On leaving university, having applied for the Civil Service Fast Stream, his career plans changed when he was sent information about work in the House of Lords. From then on, he was hooked. He started in the Committee Office, eventually becoming the first clerk of our important Constitution Committee and setting up the delegated legislation committees, which have become central to the work of this House.

Between 1986 and 1999, Simon took on the position of private secretary to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip—no easy task, I can tell you. That is a key role in working with the leadership to manage the business and work of the House. It was obviously a time of significant change and, as some noble Lords will recall, not without controversy on constitutional issues affecting your Lordships’ House. Lord Carter, the then Government Chief Whip, praised Simon’s

“tireless, expert and dexterous work in facilitating the usual channels”—[Official Report, 30/7/1999; col. 1827.]

over those three years.

In many ways, those first 11 years perhaps set the tone for Simon’s career. There is no doubt that he has huge respect and admiration for the work of this House. Those qualities have helped steer us through political changes, internal changes, huge challenges, and nationally significant and emotional events. On becoming the senior officer of the House as the Clerk of the Parliaments, his commitment to managing that change has been more important than ever. With Covid, we had the transition to remote working, then the easing back to hybrid and then to a physical House. So many of the conventional wisdoms about how we work had been challenged and needed to be managed. Of course, despite being involved with the huge challenges of the R&R project, it was never anticipated that the joint responsibility would be bestowed on the Clerk of the Parliaments, but Simon fulfilled that additional role with his usual diligence.

Of course, not all change is universally welcomed. Some may recall that there was a time when our Table Clerk seating arrangements involved a hard, backless bench. Simon introduced the radical move to bring in individual ergonomic chairs. A “Yes Minister” sketch might have described this as a courageous move.

During Simon’s tenure, we had the parting of Her late Majesty the Queen and the accession of King Charles, which was an emotional time for the nation and this House. Although Simon was in office for just one general election, he has worked with three Lord Speakers and seven group leaders, including three Leaders of the House.

The role of the Clerk of the Parliaments is not just about leadership of the House and managing business but about the whole House, Members and staff. Simon’s personal commitment to junior colleagues to ensure they felt valued in their work and in their careers has been greatly appreciated. In many ways, Simon started his career here in the same way as when he retired, and he retires while still maintaining that professionalism, commitment, dedication and affection for the House with which he started. On behalf of the whole House, we thank him.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Lord Privy Seal in her elegant tribute to Simon Burton, our departing Clerk of the Parliaments. We are all sad to see Simon go. As the noble Baroness said, he joined the House in 1988. I checked: there are now barely two dozen Peers who were here when the young, fresh-faced Simon first appeared. I say “young” deliberately as, whatever winds may blow, he is still as fresh-faced and cheerful in his mien as ever he was in 1988.

The House values its clerks and I hope they all know that. We value that unique, essential career and all the associated skills, of which Simon embodied so many. We value experience and loyalty such as Simon has exemplified, not just to us, the Peers, but to all those in our exceptional staff whom he has led with care and dedication. As the noble Baroness said, many management changes have been effected in his time, and I know the pride that Simon takes in having confronted outdated behaviours and promoted a more diverse and inclusive environment for all.

The noble Baroness the Leader referred to the many and varied roles that Simon has held. I again pick out the fact he was the first to clerk one of our most important committees, that on the constitution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will refer to his long service in EU scrutiny—from looking at some of the current press releases, maybe we will need those skills again.

Among the many changes in which Simon was involved were the creation of the Legislation Office, to which the noble Baroness referred, which was important, and the transformation of the digital services of the House of Lords. I first met Simon in 1997 when I became private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, the present Marquess of Salisbury. There was not actually much digital then: we used to have to staple the Whip by hand and send it out by post. I reflect sometimes that, with today’s postal service, it would have been a wonder if the House had ever been quorate in the 1990s.

Simon was then seconded to the Cabinet Office as private secretary to the Leader of the House. Those were challenging times, as the noble Baroness said, with the change of Government after 18 years and the sweeping manifesto proposals to remove hundreds of Members of your Lordships’ House. It sounds quite familiar, perhaps.

He and I, in those difficult circumstances, found ourselves harnessed together as the operative elements of the usual channels. It was with Simon that I learned many of those useful and mysterious arts, which I have not entirely forgotten, which can sometimes bring us frustration but which should always work for peace across this House.

Simon was always the most congenial of colleagues then and is today. The office of Clerk of the Parliaments is a great one, with immense responsibilities, as our Leader has told us. Simon found himself in partnership with colleagues in the other place taking much of the brunt—among other things—of the huge trials of R&R, which he could never have expected when taking the Civil Service exams all those years ago. I know that it was a great satisfaction for him to see costed proposals finally laid before both Houses shortly before the end of his term.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

To conclude, this House, as a revising Chamber, has provided detailed scrutiny of this important Bill. The Bill is better for that scrutiny. The House put forward its amendments to the other place, asking it to consider these changes to the legislation. As a result, important amendments have been made so that colleagues can retire with dignity when they lose capacity. The elected Chamber has clearly indicated its position and rejected the other amendments. Following constructive discussion with the Official Opposition, I have indicated how the Government will respond to those issues. With this agreement, I look forward to the Bill completing its parliamentary passage. I beg to move.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the Government’s position with such courtesy and clarity. Our position on this side has been clear from the very outset, and that is that we accepted and accept the Government’s mandate to end the entry of people into this place by virtue of the hereditary principle. That is why I and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, proposed the immediate suspension of elections in respect for that mandate. In reality, no one has come here by virtue of the hereditary principle in this Parliament.

I also said that we believed there was a better way forward, now and in the future, for this House to be found by agreement and constructive co-operation, and that we thought that shared principles of how things should be done in this place, building on the Salisbury doctrine, should be agreed and restated. In my submission, those are endeavours that must continue and we on this side are committed to that constructive work.

We did argue, and frankly we still believe, that expulsion of sitting Members from a sitting Parliament was unreasonable and would provide a dangerous precedent for the future. A Prime Minister should not choose his or her opponents in Parliament. It does not happen in other democracies, and it should not happen here. Yet after this example, I fear that it may happen again. I beg to be proved wrong.

Mindful of this, your Lordships’ House did, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, vote for so-called grandfather rights. The majority of your Lordships asked that those who sat here among us and had served this House faithfully should be allowed to stay on the same basis as other Peers. But the Government used their mighty majority in another place to overturn that request. Now, of course, I regret that; but, as I said in my first speech from this Dispatch Box as Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament, I believe we must dial down on eternal ping-pong. So, I have advised my noble friends on this side to accept what for many is, I know, a bitter pill. We will not seek to divide the House today.

I recognise the positive arrangement approved by the Prime Minister to avoid an absolute cliff edge that would otherwise result in this place by a total cull of some of the most hard-working Members of this House. That builds on a statesmanlike decision to enable the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others to stay. Who here truly objects to that?

This will mean many difficult decisions for those on this side and on the Cross Benches. For dozens of our fellows on this side and on the Cross Benches, April will be a cruel month of cold going; but that is how it will be. For others, the passage of this Bill will be a matter of high satisfaction; and that too is how it will be. But let us treat each other’s feelings with respect. That is the way of this House.

I remember as if it were yesterday sitting in the Box, hearing the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in this Chamber on 30 March 1999. He said that a “compromise” had been reached,

“binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

Like all compromises, it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise, and so let it be today with this arrangement.

I welcome what the noble Baroness said about responding to your Lordships’ wishes on power of attorney as a way to retirement. That was a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde—not the least of his many services to this House, and I trust not the last.

I welcome the action being taken in another place, which the noble Baroness told us about, to enable all Lords Ministers to be paid. As the House well knows, I, as Leader of the House, believed that the practice of restricting many opportunities of service on the Government Front Bench to those who have private means had no place in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. I tried to secure pay for all Lords Ministers when I was Leader of the House, but sadly I was blocked—first by my own party and then by the party opposite. So I welcome the new Bill that the noble Baroness has told us about and assure her that we will support it.

I am disappointed that the Government see no place for life peerages outside your Lordships’ House. I continue to believe that that would be a useful reform. Frankly, we do not need people who come here for a title and then do precious little; on that, I agree with the noble Baroness. I think the time for that reform may come, but that is for another day.

So here we are, at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary Peers in this Parliament. They helped to create our Parliament and they brought it back to life in 1660. In this House, 250 years ago, the elder Pitt called for a “just settlement” for the American colonies. Well, that did not work out very well, did it? Here, in 1807, Grenville secured the slave trade abolition Act. In 1832, Grey moved the first reform Act. Here too the illustrious ancestor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, passed Catholic emancipation.

Many thousands of Peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made. It was not all a stereotypical history of reaction in ermine. Many of those people no doubt were flawed, but, for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well. This Bill draws a line under all that, and it is drawn, but we remember them and we thank them, just as we thank and will always remember those of our comrades in this House, on all Benches, who are being removed under this Bill today. Many of us on all sides will miss you—if I may use the “you”.

Chapter 1 of Labour’s manifesto plans for removals is now over. As the noble Baroness reminded us, chapter 2—debates on the promised removal of all Peers over 80 within three years, as the manifesto said—is now opened. The shadow that hung over the 92 for the last two years now rather lours over hundreds more among us. We welcome the Select Committee being set up by the noble Baroness and we await the outcome of its deliberations and all that will follow. There will be difficult waters, but the Labour manifesto mandate is clear and stark. This side will address whatever comes in a constructive spirit.

The House of the Life Peerages Act 1958 now goes forward alone. There will be no more so-called indefensible others to blame. We will be judged in the years and perhaps decades ahead on how we each acquit ourselves. For my part, I hope and believe that we will do so with the dignity, courtesy and high sense of duty that our departing hereditary colleagues sought to display. As we go forward, we on this side will always join hands across the Chamber in a positive manner to contribute to that and ensure the effective operation of this great House.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. Finding the balance between, first, the Government’s 2024 manifesto, secondly, the maintenance of the separation of powers among the three legs of our constitutional stool—the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary—and, thirdly, the proper staffing and working of our House has taken a considerable amount of time. That is not surprising, given the large number of people involved in thinking about these matters.

In the lead of this thinking have been the Leader of our House and the shadow Leader. I pay tribute to them both for having found that balance and thank them and the many involved. This means that I strongly support the Leader of the House in her four Motions, in particular—taking only a brief loop—Motion B. As mentioned, surfacing only last week, the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill is something that I warmly welcome. From the perspective of our Chamber, it is overdue.

I note as well that the progress of this Bill has given rise to that important committee, the Retirement and Participation Committee, which will bring further reform into focus when it reports in the summer. I wish it well in its endeavours.

On behalf of the many hereditaries, as I am a hybrid function these days, I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader for their very warm words about the hereditaries. I feel that every hereditary arrives here really trying to do the right thing and to work hard on behalf of the House. I feel that they will hold their heads high in future years, whatever happens to them personally.

In closing, I note only that the mechanics of tidying things up will take a period of time. I know that those involved in this are moving with as much speed as possible. Accordingly, I hope that people will be patient. I hope also that the House can now move on from this difficult period back to our normal diet of scrutinising the Government and their legislation.

Middle East

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

“specific and limited defensive purpose”?

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that

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

Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that

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

but this week he said that:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standards in Public Life

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life and, as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the problem with this Statement is that it does not address the central question of why the Prime Minister chose a twice-disgraced man, a known associate of a convicted criminal and one of the most repellent paedophiles we have ever known, to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington—removing an outstanding career diplomat to make way for a liar and a charlatan.

None of the extensive if rather vague measures set out in this Statement would have had any impact on what happened. The Prime Minister knew of Mandelson’s track record and that Mandelson was still in touch with Epstein, yet he promoted Mandelson. This was a massive misjudgment, as I know the noble Baroness opposite agrees, which has brought disrepute not on this House, as the Statement claimed, but on Mandelson and those who appointed him. It has also deeply embarrassed our country.

The Statement talks about a duty of candour. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the public accountability Bill? When will it be brought to your Lordships’ House? In relation to candour, I draw attention to two words in the resignation statement of Morgan McSweeney. The words I refer to are, “when asked”. The resignation statement said:

“When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment”.


Mr McSweeney did not write those words by accident. Who asked him about Mandelson? Was it Mr Jonathan Powell or was it the Prime Minister? Who was it? At Questions today, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, said that she did not know. Can the noble Baroness tell us? If she does not know now, will she undertake to find out and let the House know?

The Statement and much of the accompanying spin threw out a lot of blame and a lot of political chaff. We have had blame cast on the vetting system. I believe that is a disservice to the highly dedicated professionals involved, but who made the appointment? If the Prime Minister did not have enough vetting information, heaven knows, he is the Prime Minister—he of all people could have asked the security services for more. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told the House at Questions that Mandelson was announced as ambassador before the vetting process was completed. Why was that? Was it not considered important?

There is talk in the Statement of more rules on standards. We all want the highest standards in public life but, had the standards that already exist been respected and enforced, we would not find ourselves in this position at all. The problem before us is not absence of rules but absence of judgment. No amount of new bureaucratic architecture can compensate for such a basic failure.

There is talk in the Statement of a

“lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels”.

I think that is jargon for WhatsApp. My goodness, what would Mr Streeting and the other eager contenders for the Labour leadership do without WhatsApp? Of course, we all agree with Mr Streeting that the Government have

“No growth strategy at all”,


but the Cabinet Office published detailed guidance on these matters in 2023. Was it not being followed by those involved? Can the Minister tell us in what specific respects this guidance in relation to the use of WhatsApp is unclear? What steps are being taken to avoid the intentional deletion and auto-deletion of electronic communications by any special adviser or person involved in these matters? Has guidance been sent to departments?

There is talk of banning second jobs. My personal view is that a politics made up only of professional politicians would be a politics deprived of many insights. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give the firmest possible assurance that there will be no extension of that to this House, which relies so much on outside experience?

The Statement says that the Government will ask your Lordships’ Conduct Committee to reinvestigate rules around the conduct of Peers. With respect, that is a matter for this House and not for the Government. The Conduct Committee carried out a major review of the Code of Conduct earlier this Session, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It reached carefully considered conclusions, published barely more than a year ago. I understand that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has written to the committee seeking further consideration. No one can object to any code being kept under review; that is what we do and have done in this House over the years. However, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will assure this House that there will be no pressure from the Government on the committee as it considers her letter, simply on the basis that the Prime Minister wants to close a stable door that he should never have opened in the first place.

We welcome that the Statement reiterates that the ISC will be able to review all documents relevant to this scandal, but can the noble Baroness respond to a question asked last week by my noble friend Lady Finn about the powers inherent in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the potential influence of the Cabinet Office? What steps are being taken to avoid conflicts of interest or undue pressure in the light of the ISC secretariat being staffed by the Cabinet Office?

The Statement says that the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the committee about the documents. Can the noble Baroness confirm the astounding reports today that the Cabinet Secretary is now potentially being removed and may perhaps be a further scapegoat in this sorry affair? Is it true that he is leaving or not?

If there is to be legislation about titles, as is alluded to and which we can certainly, positively, all consider in this House, will the noble Baroness give a clear assurance that there will be full and open consultation across party lines before any legislation is published?

Certainly, it will be a welcome thing if the likes of Mandelson are rooted out of public life, even if at the third time of asking. However, I submit that we should not be stampeded into ill thought-through measures that may trench on the freedoms and privileges of Parliament. Does the noble Baroness agree that the answer is not necessarily to rebuild the system in haste after each failure but to exercise proper judgment at the point of appointment? That is what went wrong in this sorry affair.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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