Middle East
Lord True Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in thanking the Government for laying this Statement, I begin by paying tribute to our brave service men and women who are serving in this conflict right now. They are the very best of Britain, and they have this House’s unequivocal support.
I remember well 16 October 1964, the day the murderous regime of Chairman Mao announced that China had exploded a nuclear bomb. I will not forget the shiver this sent round the world. How would we have felt if we had heard a similar announcement that the murderous regime of the IRGC and the ayatollahs, steeped in the blood of their own young people, tens of thousands of them, had exploded a nuclear bomb?
Amid the chorus of attacks we heard in the other place yesterday on the US and Israel, some people are forgetting some uncomfortable realities. For decades, the world has said no to an Iranian bomb, but diplomacy did not prevent those who chant “Death to Israel, death to America” pursuing their unlawful nuclear programme. The Iranian regime had all the weapons that it needed to deal death and destruction to civilians in Israel and in neighbouring Arab countries, as it so shamefully has lately. Why did it need to enrich uranium to 60%? Why did it need intercontinental ballistic missiles? There is only one answer, and the mist of misplaced relativism should not hide that truth. A nuclear-armed Iran intended to offer an existential threat to Europe, the UK and the United States.
We could have had peace last weekend after the helpful intervention of our friends in Pakistan if the Iranian regime had been willing to give up its nuclear weapons programme—but it was not. Let us still hope that renewed efforts at negotiation will succeed, but not peace at any price. Of course, we also fervently hope to see peace in Lebanon, a beautiful land caught in the poisonous grip of Hezbollah. But Israel had the right to defend itself against the violence of Iran’s proxies, who have even now rejected peace talks.
Britain did not start this war, as many have said, but we should be in no doubt whose side we are on: our allies in the Middle East, and the United States. Yesterday, in the other place, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who had not a single word of criticism for the Iranian regime, called the elected United States President “immoral” and a “dangerous and corrupt gangster”. We may deplore the language of others, but we should remember our own tongues. Will the noble Baroness join me in repudiating such language about an allied Head of State?
I thought the Prime Minister was judicious in reminding some in his party of the importance of the relationship with the US, and we welcome his meeting our dearly valued allies in the Gulf, who were disappointed by our initial response. We support his diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region.
The Iranian attacks on shipping and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz are an outrage against international law. While no one welcomes blockade, it has been a tactic used by belligerent nations for years, including the UK, not least in two world wars. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the US has said it will apply only to ships using Iranian ports and will not affect other traffic in the strait? What proposals will the UK put to the conference that the Prime Minister is convening? What resources we will commit to that effort, and when? The Prime Minister said yesterday that we would act only when conflict ends.
We hear a lot about a reset with Brussels. Would not a good start be for Britain to follow at least one EU regulation and proscribe the brutal IRGC as a terrorist organisation, as the EU already has? What does the IRGC have to do to meet that response from the British Government?
We agree that we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, but can the noble Baroness appreciate that Labour’s deliberate policy of more expensive energy, which is accelerating the destruction of vital heavy industry, is dangerous and irresponsible? Does she agree with the trade unions, as we do, that we must drill for more oil and gas in the North Sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields and rebuild British production and jobs? Will the Government cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty? They talk of more subsidies, but financed from where? Is not the real answer to end the artificial increase in fuel prices by domestic taxation and levies that have given us the highest energy prices in the developed world?
On defence, for too long all parties in politics, including my own, basked—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, rightly warned us—in the complacency of a so-called peace dividend while evil was on the move. Every serious person, including in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. Yesterday, the Prime Minister rejected a call from my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition to seek a joint cross-party plan, which the Liberal Democrats have also spoken of, to address unsustainable welfare spending and commit resources to defence. That was regrettable. We live in a new world of harsh realities and the first and greatest social security is defence security. Yet sometimes this Government have seemed to have a plan for welfare but not for warfare. Where is the long-promised defence investment plan? The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. Surely, we are far better making those choices together, as my right honourable friend suggested.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. That is how I started my response to the Statement on 2 March. I went on to say that
“the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1080.]
From the Conservative Opposition, the approach was different. We were told that, when Trump called, we should have answered and been in it all the way: a strategic error. Yesterday in the House of Commons, with quite astonishing hubris, the leader of the Conservative Party said:
“I am sure the Prime Minister … will … misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 553.]
We all know the truth. It was obvious, given the untruthfulness, unreliability and mendacious approach of the Trump Administration that what they had initially called for—regime change of that homicidal regime in Iran—they are now saying they never claimed should happen in the first place. They said Iran should never have a nuclear programme; now they are saying that there should be a moratorium on the programme. I do not know how that fits with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said.
With regard to the most effective way of reducing the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability for weapons, we supported the Government of the noble Lord, Lord True, when they criticised the Trump Administration and said that withdrawing from the JCPOA was an error. We disagreed with his Government when they denied the case for proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I hope the Government and the Leader can update us on where we will see the legislative changes with regard to the IRGC that we have been promised.
Now the focus from America is on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open. That will be complex and costly. In his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid summed it up:
“For the thousandth time, it has been proven: military force without a diplomatic plan does not lead to a decisive victory”.
We agree with him.
On 2 March I also said:
“There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1081.]
I also said there would be economic consequences and costs to the United Kingdom. These were obvious. The impact on the economy requires an immediate response. It is likely that the surge in fuel prices will mean a potential £2 billion in extra tax revenue to the Government. That should be spent on cutting fuel duty by 10p, bringing down prices at the pump by 12p per litre, to bring immediate relief to individuals and businesses. But we will need to do more, because these economic repercussions will last months at the very least.
The Statement is on the Middle East and there are wider consequences that have not been referred to so far. In Gaza, 700,000 displaced people are still living in emergency shelters and being denied the vital food and medical assistance they require. Just in recent weeks, 5,000 children have been screened for malnutrition. In the West Bank, settler and outpost violence against civilians is being conducted with impunity. The UK Government must finally say that there are repercussions for our relationship with the Israeli Government as a result. Continuing restrictions on food and humanitarian assistance is a perpetuation of breaches of international humanitarian law.
On Lebanon, the humanitarian toll is extreme. I have been to Lebanon frequently and have been checking in with friends who are living in extreme worry. It is chilling that 1 million people—one in six of the population—are displaced and the IDF is targeting civilian infrastructure and bombing heavily populated areas without targeted munitions, which is a clear tactic of collective punishment. That is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law. Over the last 15 years, the UK has committed over £100 million, including an extra £17 million under the last year of the previous Government, which I welcomed, to train the Lebanese army. Last autumn, the UK and the Lebanese army opened a training centre in Zahrani, an area now seeing forced evacuation and attacks by the IDF. What is our ongoing relationship with the Lebanese army, especially in areas where we are seeing military action from the IDF?
The fundamental strategic consequence is that the erratic and untruthful US President and his Administration are now a strategic risk to the UK’s interests. All this leads to an undeniable economic, security and social case for working much more closely with our EU allies.
Finally, not mentioned in the Statement or so far today are the wider consequences of what is happening in this region. We are now entering the fourth year of the war in Sudan: the three-year anniversary was just this week. It is three years and one week since I was in Khartoum and it is heartbreaking to see the human toll on a country I love. I am glad that there was a Berlin conference on humanitarian assistance and I would like an update from the Leader on the UK offer for that conference, but we need to do more. We need to restrict the blood gold trade, we need more on protection of civilians and we need to see no-drone zones. For some young civilians from Sudan, the UK could offer hope. They will be wanting to study in the UK, and it is deeply regrettable that a Labour Government have decided to ban visa applications from those young civilians who wish a better life for themselves.
We kept it for Ukraine, but we are banning it for Sudan. Why is that? I hope the Leader will agree with me that the future of Sudan—one Sudan, united—will be one that is led by civilians and protects civilians, especially women and girls, who have suffered far too great a toll. The legitimate future of Sudan is one that is civilian and representative. I hope that the UK, as penholder, will give a clear statement that that is our intention.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Lord True Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her introduction to this Bill and for her very clear explanation of it; I can confirm that I support it and I can therefore be brief.
As most of the House who have followed this will know—the noble Baroness alluded to this—I have form on the matter. When I became Leader of the House in 2022, I found it absolutely astonishing that in the 21st century we had a statutory position where, practically, in one of our Houses of Parliament in many circumstances people had to have private means to become a Minister. There have always been wealthy people who have been willing to do this signal public service for nothing. They still exist, and I of course salute them for their public spirit in doing that. Some on my side, when I was Leader, made great personal sacrifices, for which I once told the House I was ashamed to ask them, and for which I was beyond appreciation when I saw them ready to make those sacrifices.
However, the converse of that appreciation is that it cannot ever be right that those who do not have the means cannot serve this country as a Minister because a post is unpaid. I said from the Front Bench, both in office and in opposition, that I believe this matter must be addressed. Whenever we discussed it, there was widespread support for the principle, and I think that was found when my predecessors also tried to address the matter. But there was always a reason not to act, and not only in my time but before.
I think I have told the House that, when I tried to get something in a Bill such as this when I was Leader in the 2023-24 Session, I was told by my own very senior colleagues that it would “cause comment”—perhaps we were approaching an election or something. When I tried to address the matter by different means, ensuring at least that senior unpaid figures on both the Government and Opposition Front Benches, such as a Foreign Office Minister and leading shadow spokesman, might be allowed deemed attendance when they were out of London, perhaps on related business, this was disagreed to by senior figures then in the Labour Party on the basis, as I was told, that Labour would have fewer Ministers and so it would not be necessary. It has not quite worked out that way and it was never really going to. As the noble Baroness explained, this position has grown and persisted for decades.
The number of unpaid Lords Front-Benchers, which rose as high as 13—or maybe even 14—in my time is still at least 11, as advertised currently on the GOV.UK list of Ministers. It would be invidious to list those names, but they include some of the most hard-working and respected Members on the Front Bench opposite, just as they did under our Government.
This Bill could bring that inherent unfairness in public life to a close. I hope that, when the noble Baroness responds, she will undertake that it will do precisely that—she said it would largely do it; I understand there may be transitional reasons why that might not be possible. But I affirm that public office in the 21st century must be open to all.
The Bill allows the total number of paid Ministers, as the noble Baroness explained, to rise to 120 against the current 109. The existing limit on the scale of patronage in the other place set by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as she explained, remains unchanged at 95. So if the Commons end, if I may put it thus—or the other place, or the patronage secretary—still decides that the House of Commons Members should take up all their potential places, the number of Lords Ministers allowed to be paid by statute will rise from 14 under the present system to 25 under the revised system brought in by the Bill.
The noble Baroness alluded to the fact that that is still a ratio of nearly four to one between this House and the other place. I do not wish to disparage anyone, because I had an uphill struggle with my own colleagues, and I make no disparagement of the Government because they are addressing the point, but over the years I have sometimes wondered whether some of our colleagues at the other end actually know the burdens on Ministers in this House, the revising Chamber, and the amount of continuous work that arises, for example, from our less regimented system of organising Questions and the clear and penetrating scrutiny of Bills.
I said I would not name names, but I look at people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, who carries out what I think we would all acknowledge is one of the hardest jobs in government, carrying the Home Office brief in your Lordships’ House, and I remember my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, whom the House was praising not long ago, and who was a truly outstanding Minister of State in the Foreign Office and an indefatigable traveller in service of his country. Those people need to be properly recognised. Many might and could contend that the real answer would of course be to restrain the growing size of the payroll in the other place. It does not need to be 95—it has not always been 95—but that is not on offer currently, and therefore I feel that in the interests of the whole House we should proceed as the noble Baroness suggests in the Bill.
I was very grateful for the support that Members across the House, as the noble Baroness reminded us, gave to an amendment which I moved during the passage of the House of Lords Act earlier this Session. I recognise that it was not actually practical in its explicit effect, but it was designed to allow this House to express a view and perhaps force the other place to consider this issue. That has been done, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that I have had on this with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, both when I was in government and now in opposition. I hope that we can continue to give positive consideration to issues that arise from the burdens on various Front Benches in this House.
However, setting that aside, for the interim I welcome the Bill. It ends a long-standing injustice, it opens doors that should never have been closed, and I ask my colleagues on this side to give it a fair wind in the full spirit of respect and sensible co-operation across this Chamber for which I will always stand.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Lord True Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 July last year, I informed the House that Simon Burton had announced his intention of retiring from the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April this year. In November, I announced that Chloe Mawson would become his successor. I indicated at the time that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Simon, and I am pleased to do so today.
The position of the Clerk of the Parliaments has a long and proud history. I know that Simon felt privileged to be in post as the 20th holder of that office on the 200th anniversary of the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824—although in 1824 the role was very different from that of today.
Since Simon joined your Lordships’ House in January 1988, over 38 years ago, he has been dedicated in every role he has held. On leaving university, having applied for the Civil Service Fast Stream, his career plans changed when he was sent information about work in the House of Lords. From then on, he was hooked. He started in the Committee Office, eventually becoming the first clerk of our important Constitution Committee and setting up the delegated legislation committees, which have become central to the work of this House.
Between 1986 and 1999, Simon took on the position of private secretary to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip—no easy task, I can tell you. That is a key role in working with the leadership to manage the business and work of the House. It was obviously a time of significant change and, as some noble Lords will recall, not without controversy on constitutional issues affecting your Lordships’ House. Lord Carter, the then Government Chief Whip, praised Simon’s
“tireless, expert and dexterous work in facilitating the usual channels”—[Official Report, 30/7/1999; col. 1827.]
over those three years.
In many ways, those first 11 years perhaps set the tone for Simon’s career. There is no doubt that he has huge respect and admiration for the work of this House. Those qualities have helped steer us through political changes, internal changes, huge challenges, and nationally significant and emotional events. On becoming the senior officer of the House as the Clerk of the Parliaments, his commitment to managing that change has been more important than ever. With Covid, we had the transition to remote working, then the easing back to hybrid and then to a physical House. So many of the conventional wisdoms about how we work had been challenged and needed to be managed. Of course, despite being involved with the huge challenges of the R&R project, it was never anticipated that the joint responsibility would be bestowed on the Clerk of the Parliaments, but Simon fulfilled that additional role with his usual diligence.
Of course, not all change is universally welcomed. Some may recall that there was a time when our Table Clerk seating arrangements involved a hard, backless bench. Simon introduced the radical move to bring in individual ergonomic chairs. A “Yes Minister” sketch might have described this as a courageous move.
During Simon’s tenure, we had the parting of Her late Majesty the Queen and the accession of King Charles, which was an emotional time for the nation and this House. Although Simon was in office for just one general election, he has worked with three Lord Speakers and seven group leaders, including three Leaders of the House.
The role of the Clerk of the Parliaments is not just about leadership of the House and managing business but about the whole House, Members and staff. Simon’s personal commitment to junior colleagues to ensure they felt valued in their work and in their careers has been greatly appreciated. In many ways, Simon started his career here in the same way as when he retired, and he retires while still maintaining that professionalism, commitment, dedication and affection for the House with which he started. On behalf of the whole House, we thank him.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Lord Privy Seal in her elegant tribute to Simon Burton, our departing Clerk of the Parliaments. We are all sad to see Simon go. As the noble Baroness said, he joined the House in 1988. I checked: there are now barely two dozen Peers who were here when the young, fresh-faced Simon first appeared. I say “young” deliberately as, whatever winds may blow, he is still as fresh-faced and cheerful in his mien as ever he was in 1988.
The House values its clerks and I hope they all know that. We value that unique, essential career and all the associated skills, of which Simon embodied so many. We value experience and loyalty such as Simon has exemplified, not just to us, the Peers, but to all those in our exceptional staff whom he has led with care and dedication. As the noble Baroness said, many management changes have been effected in his time, and I know the pride that Simon takes in having confronted outdated behaviours and promoted a more diverse and inclusive environment for all.
The noble Baroness the Leader referred to the many and varied roles that Simon has held. I again pick out the fact he was the first to clerk one of our most important committees, that on the constitution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will refer to his long service in EU scrutiny—from looking at some of the current press releases, maybe we will need those skills again.
Among the many changes in which Simon was involved were the creation of the Legislation Office, to which the noble Baroness referred, which was important, and the transformation of the digital services of the House of Lords. I first met Simon in 1997 when I became private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, the present Marquess of Salisbury. There was not actually much digital then: we used to have to staple the Whip by hand and send it out by post. I reflect sometimes that, with today’s postal service, it would have been a wonder if the House had ever been quorate in the 1990s.
Simon was then seconded to the Cabinet Office as private secretary to the Leader of the House. Those were challenging times, as the noble Baroness said, with the change of Government after 18 years and the sweeping manifesto proposals to remove hundreds of Members of your Lordships’ House. It sounds quite familiar, perhaps.
He and I, in those difficult circumstances, found ourselves harnessed together as the operative elements of the usual channels. It was with Simon that I learned many of those useful and mysterious arts, which I have not entirely forgotten, which can sometimes bring us frustration but which should always work for peace across this House.
Simon was always the most congenial of colleagues then and is today. The office of Clerk of the Parliaments is a great one, with immense responsibilities, as our Leader has told us. Simon found himself in partnership with colleagues in the other place taking much of the brunt—among other things—of the huge trials of R&R, which he could never have expected when taking the Civil Service exams all those years ago. I know that it was a great satisfaction for him to see costed proposals finally laid before both Houses shortly before the end of his term.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Lord True ExcerptsTuesday 10th March 2026
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (9 Mar 2026)
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the Government’s position with such courtesy and clarity. Our position on this side has been clear from the very outset, and that is that we accepted and accept the Government’s mandate to end the entry of people into this place by virtue of the hereditary principle. That is why I and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, proposed the immediate suspension of elections in respect for that mandate. In reality, no one has come here by virtue of the hereditary principle in this Parliament.
I also said that we believed there was a better way forward, now and in the future, for this House to be found by agreement and constructive co-operation, and that we thought that shared principles of how things should be done in this place, building on the Salisbury doctrine, should be agreed and restated. In my submission, those are endeavours that must continue and we on this side are committed to that constructive work.
We did argue, and frankly we still believe, that expulsion of sitting Members from a sitting Parliament was unreasonable and would provide a dangerous precedent for the future. A Prime Minister should not choose his or her opponents in Parliament. It does not happen in other democracies, and it should not happen here. Yet after this example, I fear that it may happen again. I beg to be proved wrong.
Mindful of this, your Lordships’ House did, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, vote for so-called grandfather rights. The majority of your Lordships asked that those who sat here among us and had served this House faithfully should be allowed to stay on the same basis as other Peers. But the Government used their mighty majority in another place to overturn that request. Now, of course, I regret that; but, as I said in my first speech from this Dispatch Box as Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament, I believe we must dial down on eternal ping-pong. So, I have advised my noble friends on this side to accept what for many is, I know, a bitter pill. We will not seek to divide the House today.
I recognise the positive arrangement approved by the Prime Minister to avoid an absolute cliff edge that would otherwise result in this place by a total cull of some of the most hard-working Members of this House. That builds on a statesmanlike decision to enable the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others to stay. Who here truly objects to that?
This will mean many difficult decisions for those on this side and on the Cross Benches. For dozens of our fellows on this side and on the Cross Benches, April will be a cruel month of cold going; but that is how it will be. For others, the passage of this Bill will be a matter of high satisfaction; and that too is how it will be. But let us treat each other’s feelings with respect. That is the way of this House.
I remember as if it were yesterday sitting in the Box, hearing the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in this Chamber on 30 March 1999. He said that a “compromise” had been reached,
“binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
Like all compromises, it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise, and so let it be today with this arrangement.
I welcome what the noble Baroness said about responding to your Lordships’ wishes on power of attorney as a way to retirement. That was a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde—not the least of his many services to this House, and I trust not the last.
I welcome the action being taken in another place, which the noble Baroness told us about, to enable all Lords Ministers to be paid. As the House well knows, I, as Leader of the House, believed that the practice of restricting many opportunities of service on the Government Front Bench to those who have private means had no place in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. I tried to secure pay for all Lords Ministers when I was Leader of the House, but sadly I was blocked—first by my own party and then by the party opposite. So I welcome the new Bill that the noble Baroness has told us about and assure her that we will support it.
I am disappointed that the Government see no place for life peerages outside your Lordships’ House. I continue to believe that that would be a useful reform. Frankly, we do not need people who come here for a title and then do precious little; on that, I agree with the noble Baroness. I think the time for that reform may come, but that is for another day.
So here we are, at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary Peers in this Parliament. They helped to create our Parliament and they brought it back to life in 1660. In this House, 250 years ago, the elder Pitt called for a “just settlement” for the American colonies. Well, that did not work out very well, did it? Here, in 1807, Grenville secured the slave trade abolition Act. In 1832, Grey moved the first reform Act. Here too the illustrious ancestor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, passed Catholic emancipation.
Many thousands of Peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made. It was not all a stereotypical history of reaction in ermine. Many of those people no doubt were flawed, but, for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well. This Bill draws a line under all that, and it is drawn, but we remember them and we thank them, just as we thank and will always remember those of our comrades in this House, on all Benches, who are being removed under this Bill today. Many of us on all sides will miss you—if I may use the “you”.
Chapter 1 of Labour’s manifesto plans for removals is now over. As the noble Baroness reminded us, chapter 2—debates on the promised removal of all Peers over 80 within three years, as the manifesto said—is now opened. The shadow that hung over the 92 for the last two years now rather lours over hundreds more among us. We welcome the Select Committee being set up by the noble Baroness and we await the outcome of its deliberations and all that will follow. There will be difficult waters, but the Labour manifesto mandate is clear and stark. This side will address whatever comes in a constructive spirit.
The House of the Life Peerages Act 1958 now goes forward alone. There will be no more so-called indefensible others to blame. We will be judged in the years and perhaps decades ahead on how we each acquit ourselves. For my part, I hope and believe that we will do so with the dignity, courtesy and high sense of duty that our departing hereditary colleagues sought to display. As we go forward, we on this side will always join hands across the Chamber in a positive manner to contribute to that and ensure the effective operation of this great House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. Finding the balance between, first, the Government’s 2024 manifesto, secondly, the maintenance of the separation of powers among the three legs of our constitutional stool—the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary—and, thirdly, the proper staffing and working of our House has taken a considerable amount of time. That is not surprising, given the large number of people involved in thinking about these matters.
In the lead of this thinking have been the Leader of our House and the shadow Leader. I pay tribute to them both for having found that balance and thank them and the many involved. This means that I strongly support the Leader of the House in her four Motions, in particular—taking only a brief loop—Motion B. As mentioned, surfacing only last week, the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill is something that I warmly welcome. From the perspective of our Chamber, it is overdue.
I note as well that the progress of this Bill has given rise to that important committee, the Retirement and Participation Committee, which will bring further reform into focus when it reports in the summer. I wish it well in its endeavours.
On behalf of the many hereditaries, as I am a hybrid function these days, I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader for their very warm words about the hereditaries. I feel that every hereditary arrives here really trying to do the right thing and to work hard on behalf of the House. I feel that they will hold their heads high in future years, whatever happens to them personally.
In closing, I note only that the mechanics of tidying things up will take a period of time. I know that those involved in this are moving with as much speed as possible. Accordingly, I hope that people will be patient. I hope also that the House can now move on from this difficult period back to our normal diet of scrutinising the Government and their legislation.
Middle East
Lord True Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. As someone who has spent many years studying the history of that region, I have the profoundest respect for the history and culture of Iran, which over millennia has been one of the greatest pillars of world civilisation. Since the Islamist takeover in 1979, its extraordinary people have suffered horrendously—for the last 37 years under the pitiless hand of the late unlamented dictator Khamenei. The Statement implies that for our greatest ally, the United States, to act against this abhorrent regime was unlawful. It conspicuously offers no support for the strikes and says repeatedly that we will do nothing like them. Can the Lord Privy Seal please set out the Government’s legal position on the US action? It is simply not enough for them to say that this is for the US to explain. Frankly, that is a cop-out. She has the leading expert sitting alongside her.
Can she also say why our bases could not be used to protect US and Israeli citizens when they were under attack but can be used now when other nations are attacked? Is this an example of what they call two-tier international law? Did the savage slaughter of thousands of unarmed youngsters crying for freedom a few weeks ago not tell us anything about the brutality of this regime? Was that mass murder not unlawful? Did the fact that this regime has conducted multiple plots on British soil not sway the Government? Did the fact that the Iranian regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism not tell the Government anything? Was mass terror paid for by Iran for decades not unlawful? Had the Government not noticed that the declared objective of the regime was to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state? Did they not hear Khamenei praising the massacre of innocent Jews on that dreadful 7 October? Was that in accordance with international law?
Were we simply to watch and let this regime acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to target them on Britain? Was an attempt to stop that by the USA unlawful? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow Attorney-General, has said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed”.
The Statement calls for negotiation, and of course that is the ideal. But the Khamenei regime faked negotiation, reneged on what was negotiated, played for time to develop nuclear weapons, and even now repudiates a negotiated course. Sometimes in human affairs there comes a deciding moment when we are called on to take a choice on where we stand. Opinions may legitimately differ, but the choice has to be made. Last week was such a time, and history will record that when our US ally asked us for help, this Government chose to say no.
Our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by the US. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that we on this side also stand with the US and Israel for taking necessary action to defend themselves and nations across the world from a regime steeped in blood and terror for decades. Where were we when our American allies called last week? We did not just pass by on the other side; we stood in their way and said they could not use the bases. They have noticed.
We welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness has told us today, that the Government have changed their mind on the use of our bases, albeit after far too long. But can she explain to the House how we will know whether each US combat mission is, as the Statement puts it, in line with a
“specific and limited defensive purpose”?
Can she set out to us how in practice this will be determined, mission by mission, and by whom?
The reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran on its neighbours in the last days did not reveal but simply confirmed the regime’s well-laid aggressive plans and intent. As the noble Baroness has said, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our brave service men and women, and those of other allied nations, many under attack by Iran, who are now engaged in action. Like the noble Baroness, we salute them and we think of their families.
I also thank the Government for setting out in some detail the actions they are taking to support and protect the hundreds of thousands of our citizens caught in areas under Iranian attack. Many people in the House will have family or friends in the Gulf. I certainly do, and I know at first hand of their current anxiety. Will the noble Baroness keep the House informed of the development of any contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens?
On another issue, does the noble Baroness accept that, in the light of clear evidence of the world strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and in the context of a major conflict in the Middle East, the Bill proposing the naive deal to surrender the Chagos Islands cannot proceed? From this Dispatch Box I have often—and noble Lords opposite will know this—praised the role of the Prime Minister on the international stage. I have spoken here highly of his record on and support of Ukraine. So it was sad to hear this morning the President of the United States feeling he had to be so critical of the Prime Minister on both the strikes over the weekend and the Chagos deal.
This is indeed a time of trial. Our allies and the wider world will judge of what we are made, and we must be decisive, resolute and implacable in the face of this barbarous terror regime.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. The statements from the President today have not added clarity. The Government are right not to have allowed the use of UK assets for offensive use. The US and Israeli Governments’ actions have put UK lives at risk, including our personnel.
Ayatollah Khamenei headed a homicidal regime which brutalised its own people, denied basic human rights and was deeply destabilising from the Gulf through to central Africa and Sudan. But changes of regimes are for the people of that country, not for the interests of another simply because that other has military prowess.
In June 2025, after the bombing of Iran by the US and IDF forces, we were told that that bombing was successful. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that
“our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons”.
IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that
“we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years”.
Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that
“reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve our objective is just completely preposterous”,
but this week he said that:
“They are probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material, and that’s really dangerous”.
We have been told that threats were imminent, and they were not.
The victims of the war are already clear, from the terrible scenes—now being investigated by the United States’ CENTCOM—of the bombing of a girls’ school to the civilians in Lebanon and beyond. There is every chance that the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable. Will the Leader state that His Majesty’s Government stress that protection of civilians in conflict is mandated in international humanitarian law and is not discretional?
These are the early days of this action. We are yet to know the full consequences, and they are hard to predict. They are even harder to predict since what our Government consider our closest ally—which, incidentally, was criticising us yesterday—is led by an untrustworthy President. He could halt the attacks when he wishes, because the objectives have not been outlined, and he could claim a mission accomplished as he defines it himself. He has said enough since the weekend to suggest that he would blame the Iranian population themselves if they did not rise up to topple a military regime—rising up in streets they are fearful of being in because they are being bombed.
There is also no clear endgame. We do not know whether the United States wants a democratically appointed Government, as the protesters do, or a more amenable revolutionary ideological Government and a managed transition to a more acceptable dictator. United States Senator Cotton said yesterday that he hoped that those who could become the leaders of Iran will be “auditioning to be the next Delcy Rodriguez”—that it is fine to be a dictator but one amenable to the United States. This is not what the civilian protesters want either. They are likely to be let down twice.
The regime could topple after a tipping point; if there is no internal security, then we will see some form of “Libyafication”, which does not necessarily bring stability to the region, or there could be an internal factional struggle, with internal strife, for which civilians will pay the penalty. The Iranian regime is one of an immense deep state with enormous state capture, which I have previously described as homicidal but not suicidal. We do not know how long it would take to exhaust its missile and drone stockpiles and the ability to replenish them. On the one hand, it is okay to be jingoistic, but we also have to be clear-eyed that there is not necessarily a clear endgame to what has been started. That is not necessarily in our interests or that of our Gulf allies.
There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas or economic relationships in the hub in the Gulf. We know that, the longer this continues, the increased likelihood there is of economic costs to the United Kingdom. Of the people impacted, businesses, individuals and tourists are likely to be disproportionately affected. With insurance cover now likely to be disrupted in shipping and tourism, can the Leader state what contingencies we have in place given the likelihood of sharp increases in insurance in shipping as well as the cost to our own personnel and our own citizens within the Gulf? Can the Leader give more indications of what a contingency might be for the evacuation of British nationals in the area?
New leadership in Hamas and Hezbollah—not eradication—and now in Iran, adds to greater unpredictability within the region and is likely to perpetuate greater economic instability. That said, I agree with the Statement; there is no justification for any instances of increased antisemitism or Islamophobia in Britain as a result of this. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on ensuring that all parts of our society have the right levels of reassurance and protection.
Finally, I wish to speak about something that was not referenced in the Statement and that is going on while this conflict is apparent. In the West Bank in Palestine, we see continuing violence and growing concerns over what may be an active annexation. At this time of tension with regard to Iran, what representations are His Majesty’s Government making to the Israeli Government that annexation of the West Bank is contrary to UK policy? It is right that we have recognised the Palestinian state, but there must be a Palestine to recognise.
Standards in Public Life
Lord True Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the problem with this Statement is that it does not address the central question of why the Prime Minister chose a twice-disgraced man, a known associate of a convicted criminal and one of the most repellent paedophiles we have ever known, to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington—removing an outstanding career diplomat to make way for a liar and a charlatan.
None of the extensive if rather vague measures set out in this Statement would have had any impact on what happened. The Prime Minister knew of Mandelson’s track record and that Mandelson was still in touch with Epstein, yet he promoted Mandelson. This was a massive misjudgment, as I know the noble Baroness opposite agrees, which has brought disrepute not on this House, as the Statement claimed, but on Mandelson and those who appointed him. It has also deeply embarrassed our country.
The Statement talks about a duty of candour. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the public accountability Bill? When will it be brought to your Lordships’ House? In relation to candour, I draw attention to two words in the resignation statement of Morgan McSweeney. The words I refer to are, “when asked”. The resignation statement said:
“When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment”.
Mr McSweeney did not write those words by accident. Who asked him about Mandelson? Was it Mr Jonathan Powell or was it the Prime Minister? Who was it? At Questions today, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, said that she did not know. Can the noble Baroness tell us? If she does not know now, will she undertake to find out and let the House know?
The Statement and much of the accompanying spin threw out a lot of blame and a lot of political chaff. We have had blame cast on the vetting system. I believe that is a disservice to the highly dedicated professionals involved, but who made the appointment? If the Prime Minister did not have enough vetting information, heaven knows, he is the Prime Minister—he of all people could have asked the security services for more. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told the House at Questions that Mandelson was announced as ambassador before the vetting process was completed. Why was that? Was it not considered important?
There is talk in the Statement of more rules on standards. We all want the highest standards in public life but, had the standards that already exist been respected and enforced, we would not find ourselves in this position at all. The problem before us is not absence of rules but absence of judgment. No amount of new bureaucratic architecture can compensate for such a basic failure.
There is talk in the Statement of a
“lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels”.
I think that is jargon for WhatsApp. My goodness, what would Mr Streeting and the other eager contenders for the Labour leadership do without WhatsApp? Of course, we all agree with Mr Streeting that the Government have
“No growth strategy at all”,
but the Cabinet Office published detailed guidance on these matters in 2023. Was it not being followed by those involved? Can the Minister tell us in what specific respects this guidance in relation to the use of WhatsApp is unclear? What steps are being taken to avoid the intentional deletion and auto-deletion of electronic communications by any special adviser or person involved in these matters? Has guidance been sent to departments?
There is talk of banning second jobs. My personal view is that a politics made up only of professional politicians would be a politics deprived of many insights. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give the firmest possible assurance that there will be no extension of that to this House, which relies so much on outside experience?
The Statement says that the Government will ask your Lordships’ Conduct Committee to reinvestigate rules around the conduct of Peers. With respect, that is a matter for this House and not for the Government. The Conduct Committee carried out a major review of the Code of Conduct earlier this Session, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. It reached carefully considered conclusions, published barely more than a year ago. I understand that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has written to the committee seeking further consideration. No one can object to any code being kept under review; that is what we do and have done in this House over the years. However, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will assure this House that there will be no pressure from the Government on the committee as it considers her letter, simply on the basis that the Prime Minister wants to close a stable door that he should never have opened in the first place.
We welcome that the Statement reiterates that the ISC will be able to review all documents relevant to this scandal, but can the noble Baroness respond to a question asked last week by my noble friend Lady Finn about the powers inherent in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the potential influence of the Cabinet Office? What steps are being taken to avoid conflicts of interest or undue pressure in the light of the ISC secretariat being staffed by the Cabinet Office?
The Statement says that the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the committee about the documents. Can the noble Baroness confirm the astounding reports today that the Cabinet Secretary is now potentially being removed and may perhaps be a further scapegoat in this sorry affair? Is it true that he is leaving or not?
If there is to be legislation about titles, as is alluded to and which we can certainly, positively, all consider in this House, will the noble Baroness give a clear assurance that there will be full and open consultation across party lines before any legislation is published?
Certainly, it will be a welcome thing if the likes of Mandelson are rooted out of public life, even if at the third time of asking. However, I submit that we should not be stampeded into ill thought-through measures that may trench on the freedoms and privileges of Parliament. Does the noble Baroness agree that the answer is not necessarily to rebuild the system in haste after each failure but to exercise proper judgment at the point of appointment? That is what went wrong in this sorry affair.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I must apologise for being a little late; the annunciator was not operating properly in my room. I must also apologise that I am speaking and not my noble friend Lord Purvis. He has been at the funeral of my namesake in Kirkwall today.
I wish to talk about the broader issues in the Statement and, to quote the Statement, about what we need to do
“to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations”
since the Prime Minister’s Statement last week. We all face the enormous problem now of longer-term decline in public trust in politics in this country and of what this will do to make it decline further. All of us, in all parties, need to resist scoring too many points against each other and to recognise that we have a common task to rebuild that public trust.
I hope that, in that sense, the Government will take this opportunity to push through some of the reforms that the Labour Party and others have talked about but have not yet found the courage to pursue fully. I note, incidentally, that Transparency International has just lowered the UK’s rating in its Corruption Perceptions Index, which is now much closer to the American level than to the level of most European democracies. That is where we are. So I hope the Government will take this opportunity to introduce significant reforms, which we hope will command cross-party support.
I hope that these will include parliamentary scrutiny for all senior public appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, this afternoon hinted that His Majesty’s Government are already moving in this direction. Too much power and decision-making is concentrated in Downing Street. We all recognise that the Prime Minister has too many decisions to take. Parliamentary sovereignty is a convenient myth that covers Executive domination. Political decisions and appointments would be much more acceptable if government change were approved by Parliament.
Then we need to strengthen the guardians of ethics in public life. We need the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests to be strengthened in their roles and perhaps given a statutory basis. We need to look at the status of the Ministerial Code, and please can we have the delayed publication of the revised Cabinet Manual, last revised far too long ago?
We need to consider whether the business of taking office for the Prime Minister and for Ministers should be changed, and whether they should take an oath, perhaps before their House of Parliament, as they take office? Maybe they should receive training. Most immediately, I hope that the Government will now bring in a strong elections Bill, with caps on donations, defences against foreign, state and private donations, and a properly independent Electoral Commission.
There are broader reforms which the Liberal Democrats would like to push for to move away from the confrontational style of Westminster politics: fewer Ministers, looser Whips, stronger committees, acceptance that multiparty politics means a more collaborative style of politics. I heard Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, say last week at the Institute for Government that a change in the voting system would make our politics less adversarial. I hope there are some within the Government who are considering that.
There are particular implications of this scandal for the Lords, for which the Labour Government have not yet delivered half of the reforms their manifesto promised. This has damaged the reputation of the Lords, and that means that we have to take those reforms further. We are a part-time House, so the question of outside interests and second jobs, which the noble Lord, Lord True, touched on, is much more difficult for us. Prime ministerial patronage on appointments should also come into consideration. Donors should not be appointed to the Lords, which is a working Chamber. There is a strong case for rules on outside interests and for retirement and participation limits, and we look forward to receiving those.
Lastly, does the Leader agree that the widest lesson we have to take from this is that it is not only politicians who need to regain public trust but those who run international finance: banks in New York and London, multinational companies and high tech? Most of these are based in America, but I note that the CEO of the bank which paid for my education and at which my father worked for 40 years is one of those named in the Epstein files. We should not underestimate the scale of the potential public reaction against financial as well as political elites. Will the Government therefore discuss with the City of London how it, too, needs to react to what is now coming out and what will no doubt continue to come out for some weeks to come?
China and Japan
Lord True Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Election of Lord Speaker
Lord True Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Hers was a dedicated campaign and candidacy. Both candidates were an absolute credit to your Lordships’ House and I thank them. The campaign process was courteous and dignified, showing that, despite being the unelected House, we can run a good election. I also extend thanks to all the House staff involved in the election, particularly those in the Journal Office, the Hansard Society and the digital team for supporting all Members to take part and making sure that a right and proper procedure was followed.
As usual, time will be made available for the House to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall when he leaves the Woolsack, and I have promised him, under pain of retaliation, that we will not be paying tribute to him today and pre-empting the tributes we will pay later, but I know that the whole House will want to thank him for what has been really sterling service to the House for so many years. Thank you.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I entirely endorse everything the Leader of the House has said on our behalf. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth—and he is my friend. However, I remember that, when I first became a Minister in your Lordships’ House, it fell to my noble friend to ask the first Question. I was very pleased and went up to him and said, “I’m glad it’s you asking a Question” and he said, “Yes, yes, good”. And, my Lords, he asked me a right bastard of a Question! I am sorry: that may not be parliamentary language. He asked me a really difficult Question. I said to him afterwards, “So what’s going on?” He gave me that seraphic smile and said, “Well, you did very well”.
I only tell that story to show that I know my noble friend, as the Leader of the House said, is rigorous in his scrutiny. He was as rigorous in his scrutiny of us on our side when we were in Government as he is here. He is a great parliamentarian and will be a wonderful servant of your Lordships’ House in his new role, I have no doubt.
Like the Leader, I would like to pay a most sincere tribute to—if I may say—my noble friend Lady Bull, who conducted herself with her habitual decorum and charm. I hope she will take from this election a sense of the respect and affection in which she is held. The Cross Benches are a vital part of this House, and long may that remain.
Like others, I accept the strictures that there should be no tributes to the Lord Speaker today. I regret, however, that I will not be present on the day assigned for tributes, for personal reasons. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take 30 seconds to express my deepest sense of friendship, affection and gratitude for his service as Lord Speaker, as chair of the commission and in so many other ways. I worked with him as both Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, and he treated me in the same way on both occasions. He is a consummate servant of the House, in often not easy circumstances, and some of that may come out in the tributes, along with, in particular and as we all know, his love for and dedication to his wife. He is an outstanding servant of the House and will continue to be so for the rest of the month. I hope he will accept my apologies that I will not be present on the assigned day but will know that these brief words are no less deeply and sincerely meant.
Retirement and Participation Committee
Lord True Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in July I informed the House of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the Government’s manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the hereditary Peers Bill and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door, and to those of other noble Lords, with some constructive—and at times creative—suggestions for reform of the House.
In listening to that debate and those representations, I have formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership of how these issues could be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I propose that a Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement and participation, and to consider what steps can be taken on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation. The Motion gives effect to the commitment I made to your Lordships’ House, and I am pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels. I hope that this is self-explanatory, but I would like to stress three points that may be helpful.
First, the committee is time-limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate and since, Lords reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly. I have therefore sought to give the committee a tight but realistic timeline for its work.
Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of this House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.
Thirdly, the Motion specifically asks the committee to look at non-legislative solutions, as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion for a lengthy intervention, but I would like to make it clear to the House that this has been discussed in usual channels, as the Leader said. These are matters that potentially touch upon hundreds of our Members, and the consensual and pragmatic approach that she has spoken about is one that will commend itself to the House generally. The Opposition will give full support to the Select Committee in its work.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that there is much more to say, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that the usual channels across the House have conducted these discussions. I do not suppose that we will get everybody agreeing with everything all the time, but if there is a willingness to make progress, we can do so, and I am grateful for the support on that.
G20 and Ukraine
Lord True Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.