Standards in Public Life

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

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

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was unusually able to contribute despite being late. He was only a couple of seconds late, and obviously I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is at the funeral today in Orkney.

The Prime Minister has said that this was a wrong decision. He has been clear and honest about that and he has apologised. He has been clear that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson when questions were asked. He feels the sense of betrayal that a number of people feel about the answers that were given and about the trust that was broken. More importantly, when the Prime Minister apologised to Parliament, he also apologised to the women and girls who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein. If we do not keep them at the forefront of our minds, we do not learn any lessons and we do a disservice to them. Because of what has happened with Peter Manderson, they have relived this, and the impact that has had on their lives and continues to have going forward is something we have to be very aware of.

This was a betrayal on an almost industrial scale. I doubt many of us have read all the messages, but some messages were being sent in real time to Jeffrey Epstein on sometimes very sensitive matters of public policy. That is a betrayal not just of friends and colleagues but of the Government and the country, and we all take that seriously. This is not just about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. These were rich, influential, powerful people, mostly men, who used their power to use and abuse young girls, often almost in plain sight. I find that unsettling and deeply shocking. This scandal went on for so long, and yet again those who were abused were not believed. There are lessons to be learned from that.

Both noble Lords raised the question of what happens next. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the public accountability Bill. That is being worked on at pace to get things right, and the Prime Minister has made his personal commitment to that clear. The noble Lord also asked about the vetting system and said that blame was being pushed on to it. No, but the Prime Minister has said it was a wrong decision, and he takes responsibility for that and has apologised. But if we are saying that the vetting system cannot be improved, it was the same vetting system that had been used in every other case, although clearly, lies were given to the Prime Minister. But changes are being made to a system whereby it is after an appointment has been undertaken that full vetting, as opposed to due diligence, is undertaken, for now and for the future.

The noble Lord, Lord True, seems to think that the only non-corporate communication channel is WhatsApp. This has been visited by numerous Governments over years. Non-corporate communication channels are anything that is not the approved channel. Having been in government, he will have had a particular email address and a particular device he could use. I am told that back in the day, it was quite common for people to share emails on their BT email addresses. That is wrong, so over the years guidance has been given and will continue to be updated.

The noble Lord also asked about second jobs for MPs. Of course, it is a completely different issue. Anyone in this House who has been a Member of Parliament, and I see several, will know that it is a full-time job. This has been looked at in the past and it will be looked at again. It is different for your Lordships’ House, in that Members have outside interests they pursue. But there is also the issue of transparency and lobbying, which was mentioned, whereby Members cannot profit from membership of this House. There is no issue at all about Members having outside interests and outside employment, but there is an issue if the two become conflated and Members use membership of this House in order to profit from it. Lobbying Members, if employed by a lobbying firm, and those kinds of issues are ones the House would like to address. I am glad the noble Lord indicated his consent on that.

The noble Lord also asked about the ISC and the relevant documents. I am not quite sure what he was getting at. I think he was suggesting that, because the ISC is serviced by the Cabinet Office, somehow it does not have independence. The members and the chair of the ISC may feel very differently about independence and how it operates. I hope he was not suggesting that. I cannot give him any further information on the Cabinet Secretary; I do not have that information. If there is any information, I will of course update noble Lords.

The noble Lord asked about legislation to remove peerages and whether there would be full and open consultation. I was clear in this House last week that there would be. The noble Lord and I have discussed this privately as well, and I assured him of that. I do not know if he is uncertain about it, but for something that will have an impact beyond the current circumstances, I would want to ensure that this House was content with what it did, and that we were content that it would deal with any future circumstances where the House may think it appropriate that, because of someone’s behaviour—if they were expelled from this House, for example—they would not be entitled to continue to have a peerage.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should not be stampeded into changing the laws. Of course no one is going to be stampeded. We have a proper process in this House: it is called legislation, and that is how we take things forward. In terms of the Conduct Committee, I shared the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, with the noble Lord, Lord True. There is no undue influence, but the whole House would want to be assured that we are confident that our rules, processes and procedures do the job they are supposed to do to give Members of this House guidance and confidence, and to give the public confidence in our work as well.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. He had a bit of a shopping list, I am afraid, of various things that could be done, and I have probably been receiving two different sides of the argument here. This House knows that a number of things should be done about our processes. The Prime Minister has already updated the Ministerial Code so that the independent adviser can make decisions on his own about whether or not to investigate an issue. There are a number of things that have to be done, but at the bottom of this is that we have to ensure that we are above reproach and that we give confidence to the public that we do the work that we are here to do, without fear or favour, and with the spirit of the country’s interests at heart.