Tributes: Lord Laming

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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


telling young professionals that

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Privy Seal]

That it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the Draft Conversion Practices Bill presented to both Houses on 25 June (CP 1604), and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 22 January 2027.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can absolutely confirm that I discussed it with both the Government Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. We do not generally convene as a three; we speak separately and together, often.

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

My Lords, it might help the House to know that, by the time the noble Baroness spoke to the Chief Whip, the Motion had already been tabled and we had been alerted.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The usual channels were not convened, informed or written to. When we were notified that a Motion had been tabled, that is not the way that the usual channels operate our business. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm the point that the Leader indicated. Had the other Benches been informed—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I do not why they are laughing; this is their Prime Minister. He said that he wanted to see politics done differently. He said he wanted to see more consensus—which means working together to debate the policies of the Government—and more of a partnership approach from the Government, treating Parliament properly, for both policy and legislation.

We can judge parties and Prime Ministers by their words or by what they do. Those were fine words, but we are going to judge the Government by what they do. If they choose to absent themselves from scrutiny, while one House of Parliament is sitting, we will know that those were just words and that the Prime Minister has no intention to do politics differently or take Parliament seriously and does not respect the House of Lords, and we will draw our conclusions and behave accordingly.

There is an opportunity for the Lord Privy Seal to demonstrate that the Prime Minister’s own words to Labour MPs had some meaning, to make a generous response to my noble friend Lord True—enabling him to withdraw his Motion and for us to debate the Government’s policies, which appear to be popular on the other side—and to answer questions. We can do that this week, when this House is sitting. I look forward to what she has to say.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, because I was told by his office that he was unavailable to see me at that point. I did say that he then came down to see me, but I am grateful for the clarification that he was not involved in that decision by his office.

The Motion was tabled at around 5 pm and, as the Chief Whips have agreed, there were no discussions with the usual channels until around 9.30 pm.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Around 9 pm.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

Message from the King

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to deliver to your Lordships a message signed with his own hand.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the message is as follows:

“His Majesty, being desirous that the provision made by Parliament for the financial support of the Royal Household should be considered, asks the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to concur in the adoption of such measures as the House of Commons may propose as suitable”.

Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 July to allow the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 July to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Historical Forced Adoption

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall repeat a Statement from the Prime Minister. I do not always repeat Statements; I just take questions. But given the nature of this Statement —in fact, it is an apology—it is appropriate to repeat it in full:

“This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again.

I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories. I found it particularly hard as a dad, but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.

What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.

These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.

These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976 but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.

Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.

Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told:

‘You will remember the pain … you’ve been a bad girl’.


Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut-wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely.

I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this Statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry.

To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical.

To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second-class.

To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected.

To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents.

To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes.

I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was

‘raised with racist views towards her own biological family’.

How do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry.

Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry.

Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it:

‘We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us’.


Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again.

We say we are sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so that they remain available across the lifetime of those affected.

Today, the Education Secretary is writing to all local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to fully funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently the most limited. We will establish national virtual peer-led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma-informed support across the country.

We will work with NHS England to ensure that those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record.

Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure that we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country.

Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice.

Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It was particularly moving to hear the examples of the parents and the mothers. It was a difficult thing to hear, particularly those young mums who were basically stitched back together again without any help or support—it is really moving. It is a dark period in our nation’s history that we have to acknowledge.

We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government’s apology. It is long overdue. For decades, thousands of mothers, children and families have lived with the pain of what happened. Women were made to feel ashamed simply because they had children outside of marriage. Many were put under enormous pressure, as we heard earlier, to give up the babies they loved and wanted to keep. At a time when they needed compassion and support the most, too many instead faced judgment, coercion and silence. The state actually helped create the conditions in which this happened, and it is right that this has finally now been recognised.

I also want to pay tribute to the mothers, adoptees and campaigners who never gave up and fought for years to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged. They have shown remarkable courage in speaking up about events that caused them lifelong grief and trauma. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us. However, they have long campaigned for this, and it is a reminder of how long justice can sometimes take, and that an apology matters. It is an important step, and it will mean a great deal for many people, but it cannot be the end of the story.

It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families.

I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services?

Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect?

Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration?

This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and their welcoming of the Statement. The noble Lord is quite right: the apology is the start of a process. I think we all agree that everyone has waited too long for this.

Whenever I read about this or speak to women I know who have been affected, I always go back to that frightened young woman who finds that she is pregnant, and society and, often, her family are not willing to support her. Society as a whole was complicit in this, in the way that we, as a whole, treated women who were single, young, scared and did not know where to turn. The very organisations they thought could help them were the ones they suffered most at the hands of. We have just to hear these stories. I think we all felt quite emotional hearing some of those tales; just imagine living through them. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right to pay tribute to those women and the adoptees for what they went through.

There are a number of issues to address. The noble Baroness talked about behavioural change in public sector employees. It was not just public sector employees; this was across society. I remember speaking to one lady who told me that her relationship with her mother never recovered because her mother allowed her—indeed, forced her—to go into a home. The repercussions have gone through family life through generations. There is nothing you can do or say that can change the hurt that has been done, but we can try to do something to make a difference.

The noble Lord is right to challenge us on records. Records are held in different formats by different organisations across the country. Bringing them together will be quite something to achieve. To get them in one place is crucial.

The noble Lord asked about compensation and redress. We are led by those who have been affected. There are three big things in this package of support. One is improving access to and safeguarding adoption records, getting them into one place so that they can be accessed. There is also expanding access to specialist services, including mental health services, but also to reconnection services to help those who want to trace their families, and improving access to NHS services. This is not about individual compensation. We are seeking to give the people the support they need. I do not think there is any money in the world that can address the hurt and problems that have been caused by this.

The noble Baroness asked what the support is. Some of it is in place already. FamilyConnect is already expanding the use of the national advice line, because there is no point having information available if it is not easy to access. We are funding intermediary services —in effect, we are funding family-finding services for historical adoption cases, because people need support and help to navigate their way around the information. The more we can get it into one place, the easier it will be to access. Also, through FamilyConnect, we will have a national peer and support group offer, for the support to be there.

On trauma services in the NHS, the noble Lord references a specific kind of trauma. We will get this through guidance in the NHS and specific tools to recognise the experience of those affected by historical forced adoptions, so that clinicians can better understand the impact, because it impacts different people in different ways. We need to give clinicians that information and set up a range of support that may be relevant. There needs to be consistency of care through GP services.

Something that has always been a problem for those who are forced adoptees is knowing the family medical history, because that will be so important. They may have a medical condition later in life, and knowing their family’s medical history beforehand is crucial. We are going to give the option of a marker and of putting that marker, as the person wishes, on their NHS record so that clinicians can take it into account.

All this has to be led by and have strong input from those who are directly affected. We can all stand here and say what we think is appropriate but, if you are part of the cohort, whether you are a mother or an adoptee, you will know how you have been affected and you need to lead on what is needed.

Another important part is testimonials, so that people who want to tell their story, either to be acknowledged personally or to do so privately, can be recorded. Look at the mood in this House: when I read out the Statement, we felt the temperature lower. Anyone who heard it in the House of Commons last week will have seen an unusual degree of support across the House, particularly when women gave their personal stories. To be able to do that and bring people together is important. The testimonials are an important way forward.

This is the start of a process to recognise the hurt, apologise for the state’s role in it and do whatever we can to try to bring all the measures I have spoken about into being as quickly as possible. There will be absolutely no delay. I do not think that was what the noble Baroness was hinting at. She will know from the tone of the Statement and the work that went on before it was brought forward that there is a determination across government to ensure that we do what we can now to address this and try to give some redress for the problems and wrongs of the past.

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we move on, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House will appreciate these rules being adhered to, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Lord Privy Seal.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for the tone and manner in which she repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. She will be aware that, in 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights described forced adoption as

“the violation of family life”.

I am glad that its recommendation that the state should recognise its culpability has been accepted. It has been a pleasure to interact with Helen Hayes, Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood, who is the admirable chair of the Education Committee in another place.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that our 2022 report called for more concrete action? It asked for much wider provision of counsellors to provide post-adoption support, help for families to access adoption records and find out important medical information, and improvements in the way in which intermediaries operate to support contact between family members when that is wanted. It also called for the Government to find ways to alert those mothers who wish to be told in the sad and painful situation where an adopted child has died. Actions are always more convincing than words when harm has been done. Will the Lord Privy Seal write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to say how the Government are now addressing those challenges?

One of our other recommendations—following a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—is the early implementation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal can tell the House why that legislation continues to be stalled when we hope to see the so-called Hillsborough law on the statute book to stop the circling of the wagons, as the Prime Minister rightly put it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and value the work and findings of the JCHR and Joint Committees. That, along with the Education Committee’s work, has informed the package that has come through. For me, the first step seems to be to have as much information as possible in a central place. The noble Lord will understand how challenging that is going to be. The determination and work going into that now to ensure that that can happen will address a lot of the points that he raised.

On the Hillsborough Bill, the only delays have been to get it right. The noble Lord will know from his experience and the people he has spoken to the complexities in this area. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, a very long time ago now in the previous Labour Government, I initiated a report into the deaths of a number of children who died in hospital from a condition called hyponatraemia, where it was felt that full information was not given to the parents. A report followed from that. The reason why I am never entirely happy with public inquiries is that it took something like 17 years to produce the report—I was in your Lordships’ House before it was published. One of its first recommendations was a duty of candour. Part of that is not to say that people are not giving information; it is to protect those who want to come forward with information because they are doing the right thing and their duty. It is a complex area. The only delay is in trying to get it right and make sure we address the points that have to be addressed. Such a lot of that has to work properly. If it is ineffective, it serves no purpose. We want to get that right.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. The Statement referred to Northern Ireland. Today, the report from the independent panel was published, which will lead to the public inquiry. That panel found systemic failures by the state, which led to a series of serious human rights issues. What interaction will take place with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that these women and children who were forced into adoption will receive their proper human rights?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness references, this was a Statement that covers England only. There was an apology from the Scottish First Minister in March 2023, and the Welsh Deputy Minister for Social Services issued an apology back in April 2023. It has taken longer here. I am pleased that work is going on in Northern Ireland now; that is important and I reference that. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring this forward. Clearly, families are not static; they move across the UK. It is important that all the devolved Administrations work together with central government to ensure a joined-up approach, particularly where records are concerned. I hope that this can be taken forward.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

In 1997 and 1998, I served on the Health Select Committee, along with Ann Keen, under the chairmanship of David Hinchliffe, on the inquiry into child migration. That report led the way, not least in the sense that it promoted the responsibility of the state for what had happened. I thought that was helpfully reflected in what the Prime Minister’s Statement had to say. Gordon Brown made a formal apology in February 2010. In July 2010, as Secretary of State, I instituted the family restoration fund, which, in the subsequent two years, brought 300 former families together. Will the Lord Privy Seal ensure that, in the further work now to be done in supporting those who have been subject to forced adoption, the learnings from the family restoration fund, and indeed the Child Migrants Trust, are taken on board? There is significant substantial overlap between those who were forcibly migrated and those who were subject to forced adoption.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and will certainly take them back, as so much can be learned. He and I knew Ann Keen and David Hinchliffe. People started to speak out a long time ago and it is sad that this has taken so long, but we are here now. His comments are very helpful and I am happy to take them away.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I declare something of an interest here. Back in 2012, as a volunteer, I designed the Movement for an Adoption Apology website and its logo. That was when campaigners came to the Green Party asking for the apology that we have finally secured. It spoke to me particularly because I believe that, as a newborn baby in Australia in 1944, my father was affected by a similar kind of behaviour. That is a reflection of the fact that this is something that comes down through the generations. It has an impact beyond the mothers and babies directly affected, with familial impacts further down.

I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for this powerful, appropriate and rightful Statement and the tone in which it has been presented. My question specifically is the reference to consulting on

“requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years”.

We know that a lot of institutions and organisations may now rightly feel ashamed of their past behaviour. What sort of timeframe will there be for the consultation? Is there anything that the Government can do to make sure that records are not destroyed or thrown away in the meantime, so that they remain accessible until that process is put into effect?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know whether the noble Baroness heard that part of the Statement, but the Education Secretary has written to local authorities and adoption agencies where we have information to say that they must keep the records, so that work is starting now. Times have changed, and we want organisations that have records to offer them up and bring them centrally to ensure that as much information as possible is available.

One hundred years seems the appropriate time, but the noble Baroness is right to reference the impact on families through generations. I am of an age where I can remember friends from school—not many—who had children. It was sometimes with the love and support of their families, and they kept their child and we saw them at school and at events. But there were others who went away and you did not hear anything about it—they just disappeared for a while. I am sure I am not the only one in this House who has those kinds of memories. Thinking back, we did not really understand then what happened. But, for them, all those years later, they will still be living that. So, the retention of records for 100 years is appropriate.

We do not want a particularly long consultation; we want to ensure we can get on with it as quickly as possible. I cannot give an exact timescale, but I can assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing here that anybody wants to see any delay on.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology last week and thank the Lord Privy Seal for reading it with such empathy and compassion. The House will be aware, I am sure, that last month, Archbishop Sarah issued an apology for the Church of England’s involvement in these practices, and specifically for the pain, trauma and stigma experienced—and still carried—by many people as a result. She said what the Prime Minister also said in his apology: “The shame is ours, not yours”. Today, I add my voice to the apology to all people who experienced loss or received poor care in homes affiliated to the Church of England, whether mothers or adoptees. We are deeply sorry.

The diocese of Winchester ran a maternity home alongside a small number of other shelters. Today, I pay significant tribute to those people for whom this was lived experience and who have shared and recorded their own painful and very moving stories with us with great courage and grace over many months. As a result, we are holding a service at St Bartholomew’s church this Saturday 11 July so that people can gather together to reflect, lament and be present for the unveiling of a plaque.

To anyone listening who is affected, please know that you can speak to your local vicar or contact your local diocese. They will, I trust, listen sensitively and offer pastoral support and, in some cases, may suggest you seek specialist services. Pastoral support matters, but in some instances, access to professional therapeutic services will be required. Could the Minister describe what financial support might be allocated to increase capacity among professional providers of such support?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the way that he and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have issued their apologies as well. When we—rightly—say the shame is not theirs, it is ours, we ought to say how much pride we have in those women who have spoken out. This is not an easy thing to do, because many of them still feel the shame of all those years ago. Society has moved on, but we should recognise the pride we take in them, and they should feel pride in themselves for the way they have campaigned to get to this point.

A number of areas have had extra funding, including an improvement in the adoption and care services we have at present. We have made improvements in mental health provision as well and have increased mental health spending to a record £16.1 billion. The need is there for this, particularly in this area. I have already outlined some of the specialist services, particularly by working with the NHS, that will be available.

I hope that as more women come forward, the shame they felt in the past will start to recede for them. To carry that shame for so long must be so debilitating in everyday life. So, I hope that by moving forward, we can try to change the culture of how these women feel, because they have carried too much and too heavy a burden for far too long.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for the tone and the detail in this Statement. However, the NHS was 68 on Sunday and many of the babies were born in NHS facilities. I was 19 when a baby was taken away from a young person at Princess Beatrice Hospital in London, against her will but with her mother’s support, because they felt completely unable to look after the child. I believe that child was adopted by a family who were desperate for a child. Many of the people who adopted these children were actually kind and loving, and many of the families that gave up children because no one knew how to support them were in great distress. I am convinced that what we did was wrong, and that there will be some people who will not be convinced that NHS mental health support is necessarily the best solution; for some people, NHS counselling may not be appropriate. Is it that the NHS will provide the service or will it ensure that the service is delivered—that is, possibly deliver some services through independent counselling services as well as the mainstream NHS?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, I am sure the noble Baroness just misspoke: the NHS was 78 on Sunday, not 68.

She references the parents who adopted children. I have to say that the focus today has to be on the adoptees and the mothers. It is not that some adoptive parents did not provide a loving home but that there was an idea that the mother could not be the best person. Judgments were made. I know that in my own family, going back a generation or so, there were cousins who were really uncles but they were brought up by the grandmother rather than the mother. That happened quite frequently and was not unusual. Many of us looking back at our family trees and trying to work out dates of birth find that they do not quite work out.

It is a bit early to say who should deliver particular services. That is where the clinicians come in, working with the NHS. I am not saying that everything has to be delivered through the NHS, because there may be other ways of doing so. What is important is that it is referenced on a patient’s record, because that is how a clinician will know how to find the best way to support the person affected.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare a painful personal interest. My mother was working as a volunteer for the Church of England Moral Welfare in the 1950s and I did not fully understand what it was about. I now look back at that inhibited and illiberal period in our society, and this is part of what was so inhibited. The Church of England in those days preached that sex was sinful, and there was a whole range of other issues.

Since then, we have become a far more liberal society, and the position of women in our society in particular has changed radically. I look at my daughter’s opportunities compared with those of my sisters and I am delighted. Does the Minister think that we now need to think about the broader social context of the sort of society we live in, now that our liberal society is under attack from misogynistic movements both in the United States and in Europe, certainly very strongly on social media, and that we all in different parties need to defend the principles of private life, toleration and the rights of women as well as of men from the attacks that are coming from reactionary forces on both sides of the Atlantic?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, but I must correct him: I do not think the Church ever preached that sex was sinful. It was only sinful if you did not have a wedding ring; I think it was quite happy about it once the wedding ceremony had taken place. However, the noble Lord is right that this was a societal and cultural issue. As I said, I think parents colluded in that because of the shame it brought on the family, and it is a shocking thing to say that that might have happened in your own family.

We are in different times. With the advances that have been made in society in our approach, with the great reforms in the 1960s to marriage, to divorce, to contraception and on a whole range of issues, we now think differently. However, the noble Lord is right that there is a movement among those who have a very misogynistic attitude towards women—just look at the Question we had today about the gang raping of women within relationships having been drugged by partners—and we have to be clear, to speak out and to act, taking action that is as strong as possible wherever it occurs. But that starts with language. In relation to some of the videos online where women are disrespected and it is seen as some kind of macho thing to disrespect women, I think all of us will want to speak out about that and speak out with one voice.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my voice to those of everybody else in thanking my noble friend for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement and for its sensitivity and compassion. I particularly support the actions that will be taken. But does my noble friend agree that the scandal was possible only because of the scale of stigma and discrimination against single mothers—“unmarried mothers”, as they were called? Does she agree that, although there has been progress, that stigma and discrimination against single mothers is still very much with us? Single mothers have reported in recent surveys that not only do they face financial pressures in raising children alone—look at stories in parts of the press or listen, I am afraid, even to some politicians and the way that they talk disrespectfully about single mothers, particularly working-class single mothers—but that prejudice is still with us. Is there more action that we could take to counter that prejudice once and for all?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that some people will find any excuse to demonise or act against or disrespect one group of people, and lone parents, particularly mothers, have often found themselves in that place. I remember talking to a lone parent who was a single mum of two young children because her husband had been killed, and she found the same kind of discrimination against her at times. There is the mother who has been left by the man who has left her with the children. There are lots of reasons why women are bringing up children on their own. I think all of us want the kind of society where we support each other and have respect for each other, and to discriminate against somebody on the basis of those kinds of issues, we would all agree, is totally wrong. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we should all take care with the language we use and how we discuss these issues, and we should think before we speak.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 30 June to allow the National Security (State Threats) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.

Motion agreed.

G7 Summit

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I looked with some wry amusement at my notes, which start: “Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive suggestions?” Perhaps I should not always believe the notes I am given. I want to start—which I am sorry the noble Lord did not do—by congratulating the Conservative Party on winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I had half expected him to congratulate the Labour Party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield, and the SNP, who held their seat in Arbroath. All of us who put ourselves forward for election know that it is never an easy time, and consequences follow from winning and losing. I think we should be generous in this House to those who put themselves forward. I also thank the noble Lord for his comments about me and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms—the Chief Whip. I am grateful for such support. He has not always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment.

Both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine. I think all of us feel very strongly about this. You just have to think of how the Ukrainian people have for so long endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. Others may have seen President Zelensky’s statement on the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday, in which he said:

“Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we”—


that is President Zelensky and the Prime Minister—

“have had has always been filled with real substance. Thank you for always being in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help ... Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine”.

I think all of us in this House want that to continue, whoever is in No. 10 and whoever has a majority of seats in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord True, made some rather derogatory and unhelpful comments about the Member for Makerfield, who is standing to be the leader of the Labour Party, and therefore Prime Minister. I point out to him that, over the years, he has gained a lot more experience than many holders of that office have had. He is an experienced Cabinet Minister and an experienced mayor. I think we should see who takes on that position and give them all the support that we should in what are difficult times.

After praising the Prime Minister, the noble Lord then set about the reputation of the Prime Minister overseas. I have to say that, coming from the party opposite, I was not quite sure of the point he was trying to make. I am full of admiration for and very proud of the Prime Minister for the way he has engaged across the world in some of the most difficult issues there have been. Our international reputation was not high. I can think of previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries who did not enhance our reputation abroad.

On Brexit, which was mentioned by both noble Lords, the Conservative Party campaigned for Brexit without really having a plan of what Brexit meant; and after having an agreement on Brexit, there was no plan for growth following that. We have to ensure that we have a much closer relationship with the EU; that work will continue and is extremely important. It is obviously a disappointment that the EU summit is being delayed. There are important issues to be discussed, particularly the SPS agreement, which was not dealt with satisfactorily when the Brexit deal was done. It has had a terrible impact in those areas, so we want to have that summit as soon as we possibly can to address those issues, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance.

The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about instability in the Middle East. He is right to address these issues, as this House has done many times; the ongoing work on this is extremely important.

Regarding the defence investment plan, the Government have committed to publishing this before the NATO summit, but we have not waited for the plan to be published before getting on and doing some of the work that is needed. Typhoons are currently being built in the West Midlands. Ships are being built in Scotland. A whole range of investment is going on that is needed.

The noble Lord is right, however, that the plan has to be published and taken forward. It is not just about the amount of money. The amount of money has been of great interest, but let us look around the world, at how we work with our allies in other countries and at our interoperability—how we work together. There is no point in the UK spending x billion in one area if that does not work with money spent in France and Germany and by our other allies. That working together is a huge part of the important role that we take.

The noble Lord is right to raise the Strait of Hormuz; it is essential that it is opened and that it is toll free. Wherever the tolls come from, they are wrong; it must be a toll-free passage through there. The noble Lord also asked about Iran. He will be aware of the state threats legislation that is coming before this House. I hope that we will co-operate to make sure that is on the statute book so that we can deal with state threats there as well.

A lot of questions were raised. I have tried to answer as many as possible in the time that I have been given. I would like to say something more about the recent support for Ukraine, as both noble Lords asked about this. We are providing 150,000 drones and 350 air defence missiles. In answer to the question raised, they are funded from the frozen Russian assets; that is probably the best use for those assets.

We have also announced £210 million of export finance support for enriched uranium. That supports power for Ukraine; as we get into the winter, we will need to ensure that Ukraine has the power that it needs. There is also a new package of sanctions. In total, we have committed over £21 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. I think the whole House would join me in saying that we need to ensure that this money is spent in the best way possible, both for Ukraine’s safety and security and for ours.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me respectfully say that they are Back-Bench questions, so we want questions and not statements. Bearing that in mind, I would ask the Conservatives to go first.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, this morning, a Russian ballistic missile struck a civilian target in President Zelensky’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, killing three people and wounding many others. It was a quite appalling incident, at 11 am Ukrainian time. In the G7 communiqué, there was a statement committing to an increased delivery to Ukraine of

“additional systems and … long-range capabilities”.

Can the Minister elaborate on what is meant by “long-range capabilities”?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord further information beyond what I have already said—I will look at whether there is any more information I can send to him that can be in the public domain—but I think that shows our commitment to doing all that we can to help Ukraine because of the constant pressure that it is under. The example that the noble Lord cites is one of many that happen regularly. I repeat that I have such admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine in withstanding this.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness say what more was said at the G7 summit about the atrocities in Sudan, given that it is a major root cause of displaced people, of whom there are now 120 million in the world? Will she look at the statements issued yesterday by the African Union and by the US State Department about the dangers now emerging in North Kordofan, and the danger that the genocidal attack that was made in El Fasher in Darfur quite recently will be replicated? Given our duties under the genocide convention to look for emerging signs of genocide, will she take this away as a matter of great urgency?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Of course. I think the noble Lord has raised these issues already with my noble friend Lady Chapman, who is well aware of them, and I will pass his comments on to her. Yes, it is a matter of urgency. It is something of a shock, when we think of what is going on in the world, that Sudan gets so few column inches and so little attention in our newspapers in this country. It seems sometimes that they move on to another issue and then another, but it is still happening and is still important. I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Chapman and see what more we can say to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Government should act with our allies in the G7 to try to stop the illegal expansion, particularly in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, known as E1? Does she agree that it is important that we should create the momentum that is needed to tackle and create a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I am proud that we have taken the historic step of recognising the Palestinian state. Settlements that are damaging and oppose the two-state solution just make that harder to reach and undermine it. They are illegal under international law, and we urge Israel to take action against such settlements. My noble friend is right: the only way forward for a safe and secure Israel and a safe and viable Palestine is through a two-state solution.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister update us on the coalition of the willing in terms of the final settlement that there will be on any peace agreement in Ukraine? Does she accept that the coalition of the willing will form the basis of European defence in the future if we have to defend ourselves against Russian aggression without help from the United States?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a useful point. The coalition of the willing that the Prime Minister brought together, and which he led, has shown itself to have real value. I mentioned that co-operation between countries in my first answer on the Statement; they came together largely because of Ukraine, but its resonance goes far beyond that. The coalition of the willing is something that we want to see continue, also beyond Ukraine. At the moment, though, we just want to do what we can to secure peace for Ukraine and give it confidence that we are with it. Whatever the Ukrainians need, we are here for them.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the esteem in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is held by most foreign leaders—possibly with one major exception. I think we all share with her the desire that, whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy.

The Statement refers clearly to the increased number of sanctioned people under the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. That response is of course extremely welcome, but there is a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation grey-zone attacks, cyber attacks and arson, including on the Prime Minister’s property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely, in those circumstances, we should make sure that the public at large are aware of these threats and of the consequences of disruption and are prepared for them—not only those sorts of threats but indeed all the other risks on the national risk register. Can my noble friend tell us what plans there are—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to raise a number of issues around resilience. He said he hoped that whoever takes over from the Prime Minister will continue that work. The Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaking and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions, and that will continue.

We have some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that is incumbent not just on the Government but on all of us. We have talked in this House before about a national conversation, and I know my noble friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on it. I do not think the public really understand the scale and type of threats the country faces today. Of course, weather resilience is another issue, but I do not think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of infrastructure, including banking or transport. So a lot of work is being undertaken to try to get the public to engage on that. But it is not just the responsibility of government: the whole House, civil society, local authorities and public agencies, and companies important to national security need to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe because of the impact that has on all of us as well.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

As the Government have decommissioned the last minesweeper and the last frigate we had in the Gulf, what assistance can we practically offer in the very important task of clearing the mines and safeguarding shipping, assuming the ceasefire holds?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is probably aware that clearing mines is something we are working on as part of a broad coalition, particularly with the French. We are engaged in that and working with them at present.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her comments this afternoon and to the Prime Minister for his work on Britain’s interests abroad. I particularly appreciated my noble friend’s comments on settler violence in answer to a previous question. I want to raise a second question about the Israeli Government’s policy. They collect tax for the Palestinian Authority every month, and for a year that tax has not been paid over to the Palestinian Authority. The result is that the public sector workforce and the civil servants are on small fractions of their pay, often working just for commitment to their country rather than pay. This is creating massive problems and a potential crisis. I urge my noble friend to put it to the Government that we need to put urgent pressure on the Israeli Government to pay over the tax that they have collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority so the authority can get it on with doing its job. I say this as the Government’s envoy to the Palestinian Authority on governance. Finally, I will say that I really liked the answer earlier on a Palestinian state being created and a two-state solution. A state with the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbours, has to be the outcome we all seek.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will know from his detailed question that he has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. If you look at hotspots around the world where there is conflict, you see that, at the end of the day, negotiation is the way forward to end these problems. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying, and having their lives forever changed. On tax collection, my noble friend may not be surprised to know that I do not know the details. His experience, knowledge and engagement are clearly evident, so will he allow me to take that away and come back to him? We have regular and constructive engagement with the Israeli Government; I cannot tell him whether that has been raised in recent meetings, but I will look into it.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, now that we have recognised the Palestinian Authority, what discussions have the Government had with it, following worries expressed by the United States and the EU about the continued practice of paying a stipend to people convicted of killing Jews: “pay for slay” money? We have been promised that this would end. What discussions has she had with Palestinian authorities to ensure it finally does end?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not personally had those discussions, but the Government have ongoing discussions. The noble Lord will know from his experience that you do not get everything that has to be done at first, but you have to start that engagement to make a difference. I cannot personally say what engagement or discussion there has been on that issue, but I will take it back. A point the noble Lord has made many times about a two-state solution as well is that you need to have trust and engagement on all sides and, as we move forward, we need to try to do what we can to engender that trust. That means change and understanding on both sides.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House on the presentation and content of the Statement. I also thank the Prime Minister for his work on deepening European co-operation, and his work with an Taoiseach in Dublin on deepening British-Irish relations. But, as we mark 10 years since the Brexit referendum, does my noble friend agree that the people of the UK do not want the old arguments reopened or renegotiated? They want practical leadership that deepens co-operation with the EU, where it is in the interests of the wider population, including in a forthcoming UK-EU summit, whenever that takes place, and with the needed work my noble friend referred to that is required on the SPS agreement, particularly in securing our agri-food industry.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very valid point. For many of us, the Brexit referendum is deep in our minds and we will struggle to forget it, but, for others, it is something that happened when they were very young. A lot of young people are not engaged in the same way. I say to her that there have to be new arguments; we have to deal with where we are now and act always in the interests of the UK. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the SPS agreement. When the original Brexit deal was done, this really should have been seriously understood and decisions should have been taken, but they were not. We are paying a price, or the agricultural industry is, for this not being addressed then. She is right that if we have the EU referendum—sorry, the EU summit, not referendum; I am not a great fan of referendums, as noble Lords might imagine—it should be as soon as possible, and this has to be addressed. I can give the assurance that every sinew will be addressed to ensure that we can get to that point as soon as possible.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and her answers. Having listened to such important strategic questions in this debate, I would like to pose a more personal one. My partner is Lebanese-Ukrainian, with family in both countries impacted by the terrible conflicts that continue to rage there. While I welcome the Statement, can my noble friend please explain what more could perhaps be done by this Government to support the people of both countries in their hopes for peace and, when it comes, eventual reconstruction?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that sometimes, in looking at strategic and wider issues, we forget the personal. I have no doubt that his wife has found that having family in Lebanon and Ukraine is quite a harrowing experience at times, when you do not know where they are and what is happening. So I imagine there have been some difficult days in his household. In terms of more support, we just have to keep this at the front and foremost of people’s minds: we have to continue being the best friends that we can to Ukraine, as President Zelensky said. My noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, recently announced a further £13 million-worth of support for Lebanon, because, unless we actually engage with these countries, in both their fightback and their reconstruction, we will not be able to see them have a viable future. Everything we do should be geared to that aim: not just support now, but looking to the longer-term future of those who live there.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I welcome the words of the Lord Privy Seal about the need to engage all of civil society in the issue of what a dangerous world we live in. How does she reconcile that with the fact that, time after time, the heads of our armed services are saying that our Armed Forces have been cut to the bone and that they simply do not have the resources to deal with the threat against them? Is it not the case that we need to spend more on all types of defence—not just the defence of yesterday, but to fight the battles of today and tomorrow—and, thus far, have this Government not failed in that attempt?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that I think he has a short memory. When we look at what happened on defence under the Government whom he supported, the record is very poor. When the last Labour Government left office, we were spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence; that was then cut during the time the Conservatives were in office. We have now got it back up to 2.5%; we said that we would do that by the end of this Parliament, but we have done it sooner. Under the noble Lord’s Government, the Army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. His Government missed their Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers, we cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades-old kit and equipment; nor did his Government do anything to address the conditions that our military families were living in. We have made huge progress on a lot of those issues, particularly on accommodation and on procurement—which, I have to say, was a real mess. So it is a bit rich for the noble Lord to give lectures.

However, that does not mean that we do not have to do more. There are two things, as I said. One is how we provide the money, but the other is how we work with other countries to ensure that we can work together on our procurement and have interoperability between the systems that we use. We need to take this extremely seriously. When the noble Lord says, “You have failed”, he is not recognising the work that we have done to clear up the mess that was left, which we are proud to do. That is not to say that we do not want to do more. The world is a dangerous place, and there are a range of issues. I might suggest that the noble Lord writes a book about this—I feel a novel coming on. In the absence of that, I assure him that this is probably the most serious issue that is at the top of the current Prime Minister’s in-tray, and it will be at the top of the next one’s.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, my concern is about the relevance of the G7. It was held together by the economic might of various countries, but now India and China are challenging, and they are not part of the G7. It was held together by the advancement of the rules-based international order, which has been undermined by President Trump. G7 countries have been unable to find solutions to things such as poverty eradication, climate change, and even the taxation of corporations. Given that issues of common interest can be discussed at the UN and with the G20, the BRICS countries and the EU, and in many other bilateral and multilateral settings, what proposal do the Government have for making the G7 relevant?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when I look at the communiqués and outcomes, and particularly at the engagement of the US on Ukraine at this G7, the message I have received from people who were there is that this was one of the most constructive G7s for many years. I say to the noble Lord that any opportunity for countries to come together, discuss issues and engage is beneficial. Sometimes they will make progress, sometimes they will not, but the fact that they are there together and willing to have these discussions is beneficial. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the communiqués and sees how productive this particular G7 was.