US Department of Justice Release of Files

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Japan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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


That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.

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

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

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

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

The same for us with you, Jim.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election of Lord Speaker

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too give warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and an efficiently run election. I suspect that Ministers of all party persuasions will feel a slight relief that he will no longer be asking those types of questions of any Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her candidacy and the way in which she conducted it with a sense of integrity, commitment and optimism: the House thanks her for that.

We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, well in his work on the Woolsack, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I can be forgiven for rather liking the Caledonian continuity in the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, following the noble Lord, Lord McFall. They also have another thing in common: a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability. Their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and, yes, wit. I know that all his estimable skills are going to be put to good use in his service to the House and we wish him well for it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am very much looking forward on the commission to seeing the forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as he questions the many people we have to question. I dare say that matters such as the door will have a very rough ride indeed. It is a little hard for us sometimes to recruit Members to the Cross Bench, but I am much looking forward to his arrival in five years’ time. That will be wonderful, and I will reserve everything that I have to say about the many warm and happy memories that I have of the Lord Speaker.

I finish by turning to my noble friend and colleague who ran the very finest of campaigns. I am very glad I am going to be able to carry on sitting next to her; she brings much-needed glamour to our Front Bench.

G20 and Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement—although, for those who have not read it, it ends with claims that the Government are driving growth, creating jobs, cutting the cost of living and

“strengthening the economic security of the British people”.

Having heard the Chancellor’s assault today on pensions, savings and the homes of families who work hard, and multibillion pound handouts to those who do not work, one has to ask whether the Prime Minister missed something in the 10 weeks he has spent outside Britain since he took office. Promises not to tax working people were broken today, with another punishing £8.3 billion stealth tax, through fiscal drag, on people who work hard and earn more—but I guess we should be thankful for small mercies and we can all take in a cheap bingo game on the way home.

There are grim months ahead for the British economy—we will have other opportunities to debate this—and I do not share the Prime Minister’s sentiments in the Statement, but we must all agree that even that is put into perspective by the sufferings of the heroic Ukrainian people since Russia’s brutal invasion of their country. Even as peace is being discussed, barbaric bombardments of the capital and of civilian areas in other Ukrainian cities continue. We on this side are proud that what the Kremlin thought would be a six-day war was initially blocked by the technical, logistic, arms and training support offered by the British Government, first under the determined leadership of Boris Johnson and then by all Governments in all the years since.

We on this side are also proud of the unity displayed in our House—with a few, sometimes remote, exceptions—since those first days when the Leader of the House, then sitting on this side, reached out with the unequivocal support of the great patriotic Labour Party for our stand with Ukraine. I like to think that we have reciprocated that in opposition, and we reciprocate it fully and sincerely today. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine across this House and I assure the noble Baroness that our support remains unwavering.

Not only has Ukraine been battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity and sovereignty in Europe in recent times but its soldiers on the front line are protecting principles that underpin our whole way of life—democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We thank the Prime Minister for his resolute efforts to support Ukraine and, with the coalition of the willing, to seek and secure a just peace, which can only be one involving and acceptable to Ukraine. We strongly agree with the Prime Minister, in his Statement after the meeting of the coalition of the willing, that Ukraine must have the resources, forces and security guarantees to sustain its independence up to and far beyond any ceasefire or peace that may now be secured, and, indeed, for ever. That proud sovereign nation must never be erased from the map of Europe, so can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress was made at yesterday’s meeting of the coalition on the European security guarantees which the Ukraine and the US are seeking? Can she say what precisely the Government’s vision is of the multinational force about which the Prime Minister spoke last night? To what extent do we envisage the involvement of UK forces in that?

We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, now propped up by an axis of authoritarian states in trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. I have to say, frankly, that if Mr Putin’s best chum is the crackpot North Korean dictator, what more do we need to know about him? We have no illusions about the declared and published ambitions of a revanchist Russian regime to throw Stalinist influence and Leninist borders once again over much of eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Lasting peace in the face of that can be secured and sustained only through strength, in which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees the defensive role of a revivified NATO will be essential. It was not clear from the Budget speech today how that will be achieved in the year ahead, but it is vital that we and our allies stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental principle that aggressors should not win. This is not the time for the EU to demand an entrance fee from the UK for participating in Europe’s common defence.

This is a fast-moving situation, so can the noble Baroness bring us up to date on events since the Statement in the other place yesterday, including the coalition of the willing to which I have alluded. Does she share the publicly expressed opinion of Secretary of State Rubio about progress in developing the US plan? Can she confirm that the Prime Minister was correctly reported as saying that Ukraine believes that a large part of the Trump plan can be accepted? Does she have any intelligence on the latest position of the Ukrainian Government? President Zelensky has spoken of “a solid foundation” laid in the Geneva talks. Can she confirm that the coalition of the willing has endorsed the US plan as the basis of progress, albeit with the refinements which all parties say are being discussed? Can she shed any light on the main remaining areas of concern on the part of the UK Government? We hear that US envoy Witkoff is going to Moscow again in the next few days. Is she able to say anything about our latest understanding of the Russian position?

We pray for progress in these initiatives. We are, frankly, sceptical; we have our eyes open. We may not succeed if Ukraine cannot justly accept the full price asked, or if Russia truly and truthfully does not will a peace. However, President Trump was surely right in a humanitarian aspiration to end this bloody conflict, one in which a group of old men in the Kremlin, besotted by Wilfred Owen’s “Ram of Pride”, are slaying their own sons and half the seed of Ukraine and Russia, one by one. It must somehow be brought to an end, and in all that our Prime Minister may do to assist in securing a fair, just end to this terrible war in partnership with Ukraine, I assure the noble Baroness that he will carry our full support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I too welcome the Statement. On Ukraine, the Leader knows of our continuing support of the Government’s efforts. I know that our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party support in both Houses—other than some weakness from one party, so perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. However, all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent my Benches from pressing the Government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas—indeed, there is a duty to do so. We have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of the conflict.

It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war economy and a real focus on ensuring that loopholes are closed and sanctions are not circumvented. It is why we make the case as strong as we can that Russian assets, frozen for some time, need to be fully utilised after seizure, for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin’s regime, so we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told, on a number of occasions, that we can act only as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity, so I hope the Leader can update us on when we will be able to see concrete action.

Regarding the current developments with the US, it is becoming what I might call yo-yo diplomacy; it is quite hard to grasp the White House’s intent at any given time. Russia’s response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners—that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans—is directed exclusively at Trump himself. We support the Prime Minister in his efforts. We should not need to say this, but we have to: the future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide. Anything else is appeasement.

Ursula von der Leyen was right to say that a settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve-up, with the White House as the other party. Our Government are doing their best with the coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case in our support for Ukraine, and we back up the Government 100%.

The two lines on Sudan in the Statement are welcome but insufficient. The world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communiqué. That is unacceptable. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK as the UN penholder. Last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those we have witnessed in El Fasher; they could be in El Obeid and Tawila. I hope that the Leader can update the House on what concrete actions we, as the UN penholder, are taking. We need to spend every hour securing a country-wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no-drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, which cynically says it supports peace, and the SAF and NCP, which have ridiculed it.

Last week I called for the Prime Minister’s direct involvement with Heads of State. I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communiqué and his Statement indicate. If the Leader can update me, I will be very grateful.

Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the first presidency of the G20 in the coming year, for the first time since 2009. This is most welcome. However, I hope that, when it comes, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity. I have reread the UK’s 2009 G20 communiqué and I was heartened that we had inserted, in paragraph 26, that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our ODA pledges. The Budget today confirms what many of us feared: that the Government will miss the ODA target for every year of their Administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of ODA in 50 years, since ODA statistics were calculated. The 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration of the fear that, on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the UK Government are making us smaller on the international stage.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord True, thanked me for repeating the Statement but I did not repeat it because I was sure that noble Lords had read it.

Comments from both noble Lords indicate the importance of unity in this House and across Parliament and parties, and the strong message that sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine. Lots of comments have been made about us reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, which are comments we have all made time and again, and will continue to do so. If anything, as time moves on, our resolve is even stronger because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and that cannot be repeated often enough.

However, it is not just about our support for Ukraine. We send a very strong message that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is hard to talk about winning or losing a war in which so many on both sides have died and suffered, but if Russia was to succeed, our security, and that of other countries across Europe, is compromised. Our fight is also the fight of the Ukrainian people, and we work together.

The Prime Minister met the coalition of the willing in London, and they met virtually yesterday; 36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing and that is a very strong message to Russia and Ukraine about the strength of feeling for the just and lasting peace that is required. The noble Lord, Lord True, also made the point that it is no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution and to have to come back to this point two, three or even 10 years’ later. It has to be something that can last.

Noble Lords asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a lot of this is around the capability, co-ordination and command structure across the coalition. That is important; it is not just saying, “We have capability—it is there to help you”. It is working out how that works in practice, and that is what the coalition is about. The noble Lord asked about funding; I thought for one moment he was going to divert into a party-political rant about the Budget. I think today’s point is more sombre and serious; we can have that when we have our debate on the Budget. He knows, as we have said time and again, that the strategic defence review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding.

Both noble Lords asked for updates on the plan. If I understood correctly—I apologise if I am wrong—the noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should rule out the plan completely. It is for the Ukrainians to comment on what is there. There are clearly parts of the 28-point plan that were totally unacceptable and could not be accepted by Ukraine. If it says they cannot be accepted, we support it. It is right that it makes that decision. However, there are other points within the plan that it thinks it can work with and discuss further with the Americans. It is very fast-moving.

I think that during the Statement yesterday, one MP said, “Oh, there’s a deal been done. Can we try to confirm that?” No, the deal has not been done. There are ongoing discussions, and it is important that we give the Ukrainians every support we can in having those discussions on what they need. But we would never move away from supporting them, or from them deciding on their sovereignty. That is one of the most important things.

I cannot give a running commentary on where this has got to: it would be wrong to do so. We all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days, perhaps longer. But we have to put our support, our faith and our trust in the Ukrainians, because of the suffering they have endured. The Russian community has suffered as well, yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with President Putin. It is important we recognise that, and say to both Russia and Ukraine that that is where the responsibility and the liability lies.

I will try to answer the points that were made. Questions were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored, looking at the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets. Where we are coming from is that, while this war continues, sanctions continue, and we will continue to freeze assets. We are working closely with the EU Commission and our G7 counterparts to make progress.

The noble Lord, Lord True, has asked me about this before, and I cannot give him any more updates. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we have got to on that. I think that we are making progress on how assets can be used, but he will understand that the impact of that will come if we work together to get to that point. That is part of the discussions that are constantly under review to make sure we can move forward.

As for Sudan, I understand that it was extensively discussed, although that probably is not reflected in the Statement at all. The suffering there is probably the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. It is hard to imagine, in so much of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through, and the lack of hope people must have. We fully support the work of the Quad in trying to make progress to reach some kind of agreement to end the suffering there, and the famine that ensues as well. That was extensively discussed, and was, I think, very much in the forefront of minds there.

The noble Lord also asked about international aid and assistance—ODA. May I say to him that in 2009 we had had 12 years of a Labour Government? The economy was in a better place, and the world was in a different place as well, so it does not surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009. Our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to how things were, remains. Our commitment has not ended, but that is not going to happen as quickly as I know he would like, or as quickly as others would like as well.

The noble Lord also asked for more information about the coalition of the willing. I would say that this is one of the most significant moves by the Government —to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are looking at the full range of European military capabilities. President Zelensky, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be in no doubt that he has not just our sympathy and support but our total backing, and that that is not going to fail him.

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, when the Lord Speaker told me last night of his decision to retire early, I was overwhelmed by the sense of his love for his wife of 56 years that led to the decision. There will be another time for tributes, but I would like the Lord Speaker to know how much he himself is loved in this House, and he and Joan will be in our thoughts and prayers in the time ahead.

Everyone in this House will welcome the wide acceptance of the US-led plan, and I congratulate all those regional and world leaders who played a decisive role in helping the stage 1 ceasefire become a reality. It represents a significant breakthrough, on which we all hope a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and a better, peaceful future can be built.

Let us be clear: the unique personality and drive of President Trump have moved the dial in a way that very few, until a very few days ago, ever believed possible. He deserves the highest praise for that. Frankly, how foolish those such as Sir Edward Davey, who boasted of boycotting the President’s state visit, must now feel.

But having moved the dial, we now have to move mountains. Ending permanently a crisis of long decades, comprising hatreds intensified in war and death, will be a monumental challenge. Yet it can and must succeed. The release of the hostages, who should never have been taken, taunted, tortured and abused, brings to their families and all the people of Israel a joy and relief that we all share. But now, Hamas must end its sick games with the families of the hostages it murdered in those hundreds of miles of dark tunnels on which it squandered international aid. None of us can ever comprehend how the families of those lost people must be feeling. All the bodies of the deceased hostages must be returned for proper burial, as the Prime Minister has emphasised. Does the noble Baroness have any further information on this?

When we hear some of the comments prophesying failure of the international initiative when it has barely started, and see continuing antisemitic demonstrations on our streets, even on 7 October, many of us must ask ourselves whether some people actually want the prize of peace. The noble Baroness must be absolutely assured of our support for the Government in all they have done and can do in the future in helping to carry forward the international plan.

It is true that we believe that the Government’s action in recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas was still in control of Gaza was a serious error. Secretary of State Rubio had said it was unhelpful to finding a sustainable end to the conflict, and we agree. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people; but will the noble Baroness assure us that the UK Government, on this and other matters, will now proceed in lockstep with the Sharm el-Sheikh plan? Does she agree that if the Palestinian Authority is to have an expanded role, it needs to implement the most significant reforms in its history, including to its welfare and education policies—and, of course, it must demonstrate democratic progress? Can the noble Baroness tell the House how the British Government will be assisting in that? Can she also update the House on the latest position in respect of our role in getting humanitarian assistance into Gaza, whose people have suffered so long and so much? Can she say how we will ensure that aid does not go into the hands of the murderous thugs of Hamas?

The barbaric sight of Hamas lining up and filming bound Muslims being shot publicly in the back of the neck is something that even Stalin thought best hidden in the cellars of the Lubyanka. It was a micro-image of the terror that Hamas has inflicted on its own people, in addition to its never-to-be-forgotten atrocities of October 7 against the State of Israel and people who had committed no crime except to be born Jews. Hamas has no regard for human life or human dignity. Do the Government agree that Hamas must be erased absolutely from the political map of Gaza for ever, its terrorist infrastructure completely dismantled, and the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism confronted everywhere across the world and here in our own homeland? Has the noble Baroness any update for the House on the formation of an international force to provide security in Gaza, as the international plan envisages?

Finally, I welcome the tone of the Prime Minister’s Statement and also that of the Home Secretary on the evil of antisemitism and the mania of libel against Jews. We condemn any assault or threat to anyone on the basis of their faith and beliefs. The outrage at Peacehaven has no place in Britain. The Home Secretary was refreshing in her frankness—not always heard from within her party in recent years, as some in this House can very well testify—that Islamist terrorism and its twisted ideology are our greatest domestic threat, and that antisemitism is on the march across communities, in our schools, universities and even the NHS, and threatening Members of your Lordships’ House as they try to come and go to and from this place. The Government will have our fullest support for decisive action in those areas, as the Home Secretary has promised.

Can the noble Baroness say whether any of the measures foreshadowed by the Home Secretary can be included in the crime Bill, which is before us today? It is good that protection for Jewish institutions is being stepped up, but we need to return to a society where no Jewish person feels that they have to be protected. We must aspire to a world where all the children of the Middle East are educated not in hate but in harmony, and where that great region—the cradle of so much that is good in the history of humanity—spends its inestimable material and human resources not on guns but on growth; and where all their ways are gentleness and all their paths are peace.

Yes, it will be a giant task to bring the international plan to fruition, but we must all put our shoulder to the wheel, and every step that our Prime Minister takes to help make it happen will have our strongest support.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the Lord Speaker for his work in this House, his decades of public service and the very personal nature of his statement, which highlighted the sacrifice that many of our loved ones and family members make when we carry out our public duties. We look forward to hearing tributes to him and his role.

I preface my remarks, as I did in my first comment as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, by calling for a Statement from the Government on Sudan and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and I repeat that to the Leader.

I wish to start my remarks on the Middle East by condemning the horrific incidents of antisemitism that we have seen in our communities. Alas, the most recent has not been isolated, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Jewish community is not only safe but feels safe in our country. In too many situations, it is and has not. Also, too many young Muslims are fearful of Islamophobia, and even if we see the sustaining of the ceasefire and the eventual peace that we all hope for, we must be aware that one of the likely legacies of this war will be seen in our communities for years to come. We must be prepared for that.

The excruciating and sometimes performative press events that we have seen in the last few days, while children without shelter continue to suffer, mean that healing is going to be important. These too frequent political stunts, when there is a humanitarian crisis continuing, should be very sobering for us. The hostage returns are extremely welcome and an enormous relief for the families—it was a reprehensible war crime for Hamas to have held them in the way that it did—and the return of the bodies of those who, sadly, lost their lives may mean some healing for those who have suffered.

The scale of the recovery is going to be enormous, in both physical and mental terms. Eighty years on, in this country, we collectively recall the Blitz and the damage and trauma it inflicted on London. During the Second World War, 20,000 bombs were dropped on London—a terrifying figure. In Gaza, geographically a quarter of the size of London, 70,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in two years. The level of destruction inflicted on London then resulted in over 2.7 million tonnes of rubble needing to be cleared, which literally took well over a decade to complete. In Gaza—remember, a quarter of the footprint of London—the scale of the bombardment has resulted in 60 million tonnes of rubble, more than 20 times that of the Blitz on London.

My first question to the Leader is: what role will the UK play in the enormous task of the scale of the recovery that will be necessary, including rubble clearance and the commencement of reconstruction? We will have to operate at scale, and therefore I appeal to the Government again to move towards restoring our commitment on international development assistance. The reduction to 0.3% by the current Government, with the Opposition now stating that it will reduce it to next to zero, is not right. We need to step up our humanitarian support for the reconstruction of Gaza, not leave the room.

The impact on civilians is well reported: the starvation, the denial of anaesthesia for operations on children, and the creation of conditions that have seen Hamas gangsterism continue. Yet the underreported but grim task—with the likely thousands of corpses that will need to be identified under the rubble—is only now commencing.

When I visited the Gaza border last year, I was struck by the constant nature of the explosions, fire, jet aircraft howls and the dull but persistent sound and sight of drones. Imagine our children not having a single night when this has not been ever present for two years. The psychological and mental scars are deep: an entire generation of children are traumatised. Also, we know that Israeli youngsters, who did not want war or had any role in the policy of having a war, have had their national service and served their nation, but they have gone through hell in the process. Two sets of communities are deeply scarred. So when we talk about peace, we need to understand fully what it will mean, because the trauma will be present—and it is deep.

Therefore, I close with a specific appeal to the Leader, which I have raised previously, on what role the UK can play. We need clarity from the Government on what level of support they will provide to the Palestinian Authority, which is likely to be the transitional authority, and what practical measures the UK will be providing. The UK has excellent experience of post-conflict reconstruction, and we have professionalism and good relations—how are we going to exploit that?

What relationship will the UK have with the emerging stabilisation force? As I saw in the work I carried out in north Iraq after Daesh had occupied Mosul, the UK can play a very important role in restoring education and child trauma support, especially the psychosocial support that is needed. Recovery from the horror must be immediate, intensive and accessible, and the UK can play a direct role in having immediate pop-up education and child trauma centres constructed immediately. This should not be an add-on to the process. There is no mention of education and child support in the 20-point plan from the United States. I hope the Leader may be willing to meet me and some colleagues with regard to ensuring that, if we talk about peace, it is for the long term, not just an immediate ceasefire.

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

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I will briefly make a comment about the Lord Speaker. He is a personal friend, and I first met him in about 1984, because we were both candidates in the 1987 election for the first time. The reasons why he is standing down go to the heart of the integrity of the man. We will miss him, but we will enjoy working with him as he finishes his term before he stands down.

I thank both noble Lords for the comments they made and their tone, and particularly the support to the Government for the work we are undertaking. This is not a party-political issue: across the world, parties have come together and countries are coming together to take part in the process of the ceasefire and what comes next. We all know from experience that, when you have a plan to move forward, there are times when the next step forward is imperfect, sometimes inadequate and difficult, but that step-by-step approach takes us to a place where people can be safe.

We have seen over the past two years, when the hostages were first taken, that there are things that cannot be undone. We cannot unsee the images we saw on our TVs when we saw those hostages being taken, or when we saw children starving in Gaza and houses bombed, but neither can we unsee the joy and the relief of the families who have seen their loved ones returned after the horrors they went through. The noble Lord is right to talk about releasing all the hostages. It is a tragedy that some are now being returned as bodies to be buried, but, for their families to be able to grieve, they must see all the hostages returned. I hope that international efforts can be brought to bear on that.

The noble Lord said he felt the recognition of the Palestinian state was the wrong thing to do. I would challenge that. I think all these things are process, and the only way forward for genuine peace—with a secure, stable and confident Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state—is to have that two-state solution. The recognition of Palestine, along with other countries, as we saw, was very important in that. It is interesting that, after the other countries and the UK recognised Palestine, we saw the Arab countries also condemn Hamas, which we had not seen before. I say to the noble Lord that the path to peace is often an imperfect one, but it has to be taken to ensure the safety of people.

Both noble Lords asked about next steps. The path to peace is going to be difficult, which is why the Wilton Park conference on reconstruction, identifying the ways forward and the role different countries can play will be so important. More detail on that will become available as the conference progresses. I also say that the role of Sir Michael Barber as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance will be crucial in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord True, for the Opposition, asked about issues such as education and the health service in reconstructing Gaza. There is not a viable state there, in the sense that it does not have the public service infrastructure. Dealing with that, and the point he made about the support needed for young people, particularly in the trauma centres, is all going to be part of having a viable state: you have to have a viable public sector that can deliver the services that people need. The work that he will be undertaking, which is also part of a reform agenda, to strengthen the capacity for delivery and improve the service provision, will be essential for the Palestinian Authority to be able to build an effective State of Palestine and take on the full responsibilities there. We need to empower and help form that Palestinian Authority.

On the other point, about how you ensure this, there will now be more agencies on the ground, and it will be important that we see journalists now having access, so that there can be reports back and public awareness. I can easily restate that there is no role for Hamas in the Government of Palestine. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that. It is absolutely crucial that Hamas decommissions its weapons, and that is a precursor to seeing a genuine, sustainable and lasting peace as well.

Both noble Lords made comments on the rise in antisemitism in the country, which alarms us all, but one of the things that alarms me most is the blatant voicing of that—people seem to have a new confidence in expressing antisemitism. I think that goes alongside the rise, but it is equally important to address it. There can be no acceptance of antisemitism or Islamophobia in this country. When our Jewish community does not feel safe, that damages us all. The Government have provided about £80 million funding for CST, and that will continue, but I think all of us have to call out antisemitism, even in its most minor forms, as and when we hear it. It can never be tolerated and it is never acceptable, and we will be failing in our duty to our Jewish community if we do not call it out at each and every opportunity we are called to do so.

United Kingdom: Soft Power

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, notwithstanding English football, one reason why we are among the top for soft power reputation around the world has been the very partnerships to which the Minister has referred. We have invested official development assistance strategically to build those partnerships, especially through the BBC World Service and the British Council and through development research from our universities. However, is the Minister not as concerned as I am to read the Independent Commission for Aid Impact report today, which says that UK ODA will now be at 0.24%, the lowest ever since statistics have been compiled about UK development assistance? If we are to maintain our position in the world, will the Minister listen to those who are saying that we need to continue to invest in those very bodies which have developed the partnerships that have been so successful over the years?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think my noble friend Lady Chapman has answered these points. There is part of a spending review and lots of decisions have not yet been made. We will get more detail in the next few weeks and certainly by November. However, I shall repeat what I said before on our soft power and our focus on economic development: ODA is not the only tool in our toolkit. When African leaders speak to me, and certainly those in the global South, they do not say they want aid; they say they want economic diversification, inward investment and value addition. Our City of London is one of the biggest providers of capital to African companies—it is those sorts of areas of soft power that we need to focus on. The partnership approach we are now taking is that we are listening to the continent and responding to it.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister has said alongside our allies and partners, Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon. Iran must urgently resume co-operation with the IAEA to enable it to verify its nuclear material. As I have repeatedly said to this House, ultimately only a diplomatic solution—that President Trump has highlighted—can address the nuclear issue for the long term. Iran must urgently come back to the table and negotiate. Alongside France and Germany, we will continue to work with the US and Iran towards an agreement that ensures that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon.

I am absolutely clear on state threats: we will not tolerate any Iran-backed threats on UK soil. Iran continues to pose an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue. It poses a threat to dissidents, journalists and our Jewish community in the United Kingdom. Since 2022, over 20 threats to the UK have been foiled. The Home Secretary announced on 19 May that Jonathan Hall’s review delivered recommendations to tackle state threats. We are committed to taking those forward, including through the creation of a new state threats proscription-like tool.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, hundreds of both Iranian and Israeli citizens were very regrettably injured and killed as a result of the strikes. We were told by our American friends that the Iranian nuclear programme had been obliterated. We now know that it has not; it may be delayed by just a matter of months. We were also told that, as a result of those strikes, the Red Sea threat would be removed. As of yesterday, we have seen that that is not the case. So we know that military action will not be the means by which we have long-term change in practice by the Iranian regime or safety in the Red Sea. What diplomatic actions will the UK take as part of our E3 network? What practical steps are we taking to ensure that Tehran is part of the negotiating table? We know that military strikes have not worked, so what are we doing to ensure that diplomatic efforts will?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to speculate on what we may or may not know about the outcome of those strikes, but what I do know and have repeatedly said—and the noble Lord is right on this point—is that ultimately only a diplomatic solution will deliver a sustainable, long-term solution. The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Secretary Rubio, Foreign Minister Sa’ar, Foreign Minister Araghchi, our E3 counterparts, the EU high representative and our G7 allies. We have also spoken to all our allies in the region to ensure that we can put the maximum pressure to ensure a negotiated solution. We will use all diplomatic tools to support those negotiations, including, as I have previously said, the snapback facility.

Deep Sea Mining in International Waters

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It has been made public that legislation will be introduced by the end of the year to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. That agreement includes processes to ensure better co-ordination and co-operation between international bodies responsible for ocean governance, including the ISA.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Will the Government confirm, as the ISA has, that their view is that the executive order is contrary to international law, when it comes to the law of the seas, and contrary to the requirements under UNCLOS? Did the Government note the statement by the head of the ISA, in response to the executive order, in which she reminded all parties of UNCLOS, which includes the United Kingdom, that they

“have a duty not to recognize any acquisition or exercise of rights over minerals recovered from the Area”?

Can the Minister reassure the House that in our trade talks with America, we have made perfectly clear that we will honour the international law of the sea, honour our commitments under UNCLOS and not trade with any US enterprises that disregard them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I need to respond in a positive way. I can be absolutely clear what we are in favour of. The major priority for the ISA is to agree a regulatory regime for exploitation, and we have been engaged in these negotiations from the start. The ISA has agreed a road map for continued work on the regulations with a view to their adoption in 2025. We will actively participate in those negotiations at the council of the ISA next week. We are absolutely committed; we know what we have to do. We know that the ISA council has agreed that deep sea mining should not take place in the absence of these regulations. That is what we will be committed to, and that is what we will say to all our allies.