5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   The hon. Gentleman makes a brilliant point about an issue that affects rural areas, and I will come on to how Bishop’s Castle was impacted. There is no resilience in the system. If somebody is ill for a week, that area will not get those services. Data published by the Financial Conduct Authority shows that 93.5% of people in rural parts of South Shropshire live within three miles of a post office, but that falls to 86.8% when the mobile outreach branches are excluded. If those services are cut even more in my 700 square mile constituency, that will leave a huge gap.

   Hansard source
2. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point, and I would like the Minister to feed back on the Government’s approach because these services are vital lifelines for our rural communities. Despite last week’s sticking plaster U-turn, shops face a huge increase in their business rates bill, and next year alone many businesses in South Shropshire will be hurt. The Government have already taxed jobs with the increase to employers’ national insurance and have made it harder to hire through the Employment Rights Act 2025. That means that shops such as post offices are in grave danger. I will give an example from my constituency. One of my post offices will see an increase in rateable value from £47,500 to £49,500. Its business liability will go from £14,221 to £18,909 in the first part of 2027, so in a little over 18 months it will see a 33% increase. That directly comes off its bottom line, and will make its very small bottom line even smaller or unprofitable. The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthen the post office network, and I fully support that, but these changes could cut access to post offices for the elderly and rural communities, pushing thousands of postmasters who have served local communities for decades out of work. I will continue to support hard-working postmasters and their customers through my campaign to protect and enhance rural public services, given their importance to local communities. I said that in the second part of the debate, I would move on to Royal Mail and the delivery service in South Shropshire, and I will do that now. The Royal Mail is a great establishment that was founded by King Henry VIII in 1516. It has heritage. I said I would come on to Bishop’s Castle, which is a great local town. When I was a candidate, I met a group of farmers—tenant farmers, landowners and everybody in the agricultural sector—just outside Bishop’s Castle. We were talking about connectivity, such as 5G and high-speed broadband. One of the farmers said, “I’ve got a problem with my letters.” Everybody said, “What do you mean?”. He said, “I’ve got a problem with post not getting through.” We were looking at connectivity for the digital space. He said, “This is of vital importance; this has kept me awake at night.” I said, “This sounds like a really serious issue.” He said, “Yes, I’ve bought thousands of pounds’ worth of goods off the man over there; I posted the cheque a few weeks ago, and I am sure he’s not had it yet.” He brought to light, and made a joke of, a very serious issue. From there, I found out that there was one person who was delivering in the area. Nobody else knew the route so, when they were away on holiday, the area could not have mail for a week. It was a big issue. In the Christmas period, many MPs like to go to the sorting office and thank the postmen and postwomen for the great job that they do in and around our constituencies. I have done that over many years; for the last three years, I was in Bridgnorth, Craven Arms and, this year, Ludlow. But I have seen a huge change in public opinion on the posts that I have put out on social media. People are writing, “Where’s my letter?”. Before, people would write, “Great; they do a great job.” We have all delivered leaflets in bad weather. Postmen and postwomen do that day in, day out, all year round, and I want to thank them for their service. But people are upset. They are angry.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   The hon. Member raises a really important point. Out of respect for my constituents and what they have been through, I will come on to highlight some of their concerns. When using Evri or other delivery services, everybody has learned what the whole street’s doorsteps look like when they see the photos from the delivery service. What is happening at the moment is not acceptable. A decade ago, Royal Mail was delivering about 20 billion letters per year. I talked about 1516, when it was first founded. It got to a point of 20 billion letters. That has fallen to about 6.7 billion, and is expected to drop to 4 billion in the next four years. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is responsible for ensuring that the firm carries out its functions under its universal service obligation. The latest results show that the company did not meet its delivery targets for first or second-class post from July to September 2025. In October, Royal Mail was fined £21 million for missing its annual delivery targets.

   Hansard source
4. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   I do; my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I share the same concerns. Actually, I shamelessly looked at his Facebook post, thought it was a great idea and pushed it out to my constituents, among whom there is sheer anger about the lack of delivery. In July 2025, Ofcom announced changes to the universal service obligation. Royal Mail now only needs to deliver second-class mail every other day, instead of six days a week. The changes also drop the requirement for Royal Mail to deliver second-class letters on Saturdays. The changes have not yet come into effect in the UK, with Royal Mail planning to roll them out nationwide by early 2026. From April—this is where it gets even harder—the target to deliver second-class mail within three days will be reduced from 98.5% to 95%. The target for the delivery of first-class mail within one working day will also drop, from 93% to 90%. Royal Mail is not even meeting the current targets. On 28 January 2026, Citizens Advice revealed that 16 million people—or 29% of UK adults—had experienced postal delays over Christmas. That figure has doubled in a year and is at its highest in five years. As we have heard, 5.7 million people have missed letters about important matters like health appointments and benefit decisions, along with legal documents. Enhanced protections are needed for rural areas, where many people continue to depend on postal services.

   Hansard source
5. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I have launched my own survey today—I will push it out later—to hear more details from residents. There is a need to be honest about this issue. More often than not, people will contact us as MPs; it is not always easy for someone to find out why they are not getting mail, or they believe they will not be told what they need to know, or will not receive an answer, and they believe MPs can follow up and get answers. In recent weeks, mail has been delayed in 68 postcode areas in the west midlands. I know I have a big constituency, but there have been cases of missed mail in at least 30 postcode areas there. Let us consider what missed mail means: it is not just that a letter has not arrived; it has a serious impact on residents in South Shropshire. I have chosen examples of casework regarding people who have written to me about their issues. From what I have seen, the biggest area of missed mail in my constituency is around the WV15 and WV16 postcode areas, which cover Bridgnorth and Highley—which currently has a huge problem with receiving mail—and the surrounding areas. The pain is being felt across the constituency, but let me highlight some specific areas. In Claverley, there was no mail for one constituent between 2 January and 16 January. When it eventually arrived it included car finance letters dated mid-December. Much Wenlock has been voted the happiest place to live, but there was no mail for a constituent there between 5 January and 7 January. Then, on 8 January, 15 items were delivered at the same time. A constituent in Church Stretton said they have been told that parcels are being prioritised over letters, and hospital letters are not being delivered on time. At Linley, near Bishop’s Castle, post is not being delivered to a constituent’s address because it is too far down a lane, so she is having to collect it from a neighbour. That is not about delivery on time; it is just not an acceptable service. A birthday card posted on 16 January in Oreton, going second class to Ludlow, has still not arrived. In Bridgnorth, a constituent must generally wait between one and two weeks for post to arrive. More often than not they have to go to the sorting office to collect it. That is not a delivery service; that is a collection service, which is very different. Let me highlight the cases of some individuals who feel strongly about this issue and who I have been helping to support. Maureen said: “Not fair when you get taken off a waiting list for not turning up at a hospital appointment you haven’t received the appointment for.” Mark believes that poor delivery is “damaging business reputation for customers without email address”— I will come to internet access in a moment—because they are getting certificates from his business three 3 weeks late. It does not look professional and there is nothing he can do about that. Russell highlighted: “Late hospital appointments, usually received a week or more after the appointment date.” This case is very concerning. Sarah was on a waiting list, and the hospital admission letters for surgery, and other information, arrived 10 days after the operation date, causing her more issues than we would care to believe. Ian had had only two deliveries since Christmas until three days ago, when two deliveries then arrived in two days, which is inconsistent. Ada receives her doctor’s appointments a week late at the best of times. Jill says: “We have mail delivered once a week—Friday—if we lucky. However, Royal Mail delivers parcels to our postcode on a daily basis.” I am hearing time and again that parcels are getting delivered but letters are not. Lynn says it is dreadful that “post has been taking 8 days to arrive that is posted…in this country. Cards I posted to America got there in 6 days.” The system is failing if the post takes eight days here but is far quicker internationally. Amanda posted an important parcel with medical cream for a relative and it took seven days, although she had paid for a 24-hour tracking service. She also posted a birthday card with a first-class stamp that took nine days to be delivered. Danil had mail come four weeks late, and Janet posted a card for her grandson, only to Staffordshire, which is the neighbouring county, and it took 15 days. She got mail to Australia more quickly than she got it to the neighbouring county. Constituents in Highley repeatedly tell me that they are exceptionally lucky if they get service once a week. Dank’s elderly mum has waited since new year’s eve for a PIN code—the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about bank cards and PIN codes not arriving at the same time—and she has still not received it. She is cut off from accessing cash.

   Hansard source
6. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   I definitely agree: is not acceptable at all. As the Minister is listening, and I am pretty sure Royal Mail will be watching, let me say that we need the service to change. People are getting penalised through no fault of their own, and it is having a damaging and detrimental impact on many people.

   Hansard source
7. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   Recruitment is a serious issue for Royal Mail at the moment. Some people have worked there for years, and when I go to sorting offices they tell me how they delivered far less five years ago and how it was a completely different service 20 years ago. We certainly need to ensure that they are looked after, and that we have the right packages to retain people at Royal Mail. It is clear from the stories I have outlined that postal services in rural areas are an absolute mess. Cards, serious medical appointments, fines, invoices and legal letters are being missed because the bare minimum standards are not being met in South Shropshire. I am not asking for anything new; I am asking that the minimum standard is met for my constituents. It is all well and good saying that we are moving into the digital age, but only 40% of South Shropshire residents are on 5G, and 43% of homes do not have high-speed broadband. I can guarantee that those among the 40% and 43% are in the same areas, which are the remotest parts of the constituency that do not have connectivity, so they cannot get on the internet or on their phones to access services, and they are not getting their mail. They are completely excluded from the modern-day way of life, and that is not acceptable. Physical letters do still matter, and many of my constituents are rightly angry, and actually livid, that Royal Mail has prioritised parcels over letters—I have documented evidence in many cases—to the detriment of my constituents. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what can be done to improve the delivery of letters in South Shropshire as urgently as possible. Postal services in rural areas matter, and the residents of South Shropshire are rightly angry at the lack of good and functioning services in some of my area’s towns and villages. Rural areas are sick and tired of being ignored while urban areas are, at times, prioritised. The chipping away at rural areas is starting to hurt my constituents. We need to protect the post office network and hold Royal Mail to the standards that my constituents expect. Right now, it is just not good enough.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Postal Services: Rural Areas

   Thank you for your excellent time management, Mr Stringer. It is great to be able to wind up the debate. I thank every Member who attended, particularly those from Shropshire and the surrounding area: the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), with whom I have really enjoyed working. He has run a tenacious campaign on this issue and is now following up with the Minister. We have heard today that most of us are asked about this issue in our constituencies, so why don’t we all work together to find a solution? There is cross-party support. Everyone has identified that there is a major failing and a problem. The Minister would do very well to follow up with the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and look at how his huge experience in this area could be brought into Government. We are not asking for anything new; we are asking for a minimum service level to be delivered to rural constituents. Across every constituency, our constituents are suffering from not getting their mail. We have seen the detriment from missed cancer appointments and screening, missed bank or legal letters, and isolation. This is causing problems for all our constituents, so I thank everyone for coming together today. I say to my constituents that I will continue to follow up with Royal Mail, as the Minister outlined—I thank him for summing up today. I will raise every single case. Even if a constituent has missed just one letter, they should get in touch with me—my survey opened today—because I will follow it up. I want Royal Mail to know that I am an exceptionally tenacious person who goes after everything and will not accept no for an answer. I will campaign with many hon. Members here so that every one of our constituents gets the service they are promised and every single letter is delivered on time. I will not stop until that happens. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered postal services in rural areas.

   Hansard source
9. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Lord Mandelson

   I found it shocking today when the Prime Minister openly admitted that he knew that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him. Regardless of anything else we discuss today, that goes against any value that I stand for in my life and that my constituents would stand for. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is untenable for the Prime Minister to stay in his position?

   Hansard source
10. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
11. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Lord Mandelson

    On that point, it is being reported in the mainstream media that Mandelson had a hand in recruiting candidates for the Labour party. The mainstream media are reporting that; they will have evidence to back that up, so there will be candidate selections that he had a hand in. It is also rumoured that he has been involved in Cabinet reshuffles, so he has had a far greater reach than probably most of you realise, and any defence of that now is indefensible.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. Since today’s debate started, more information is coming out—we might be at the tip of it and there is much to come out. The Prime Minister has made a significant error of judgment, yet his Back Benchers are still defending him. Does my hon. Friend believe there is a chance that this could cause detriment to the whole Government?

    Hansard source
13. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Protecting Young People Online

    Further to the question put to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), my teenage informant tells me that if you ask them the right question, most US-based search engines will tell you how to access the dark web. That is clearly undesirable, so what are we doing to stop it?

    Hansard source
14. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Lord Mandelson

    At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about “national security or international relations”? My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.

    Hansard source
15. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Lord Mandelson

    The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?

    Hansard source
16. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lord Mandelson

    Humble Addresses are very difficult for the Government of the day and for Chief Whips. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, who has just left the Chamber, tabled many Humble Address motions that I dealt with. They are difficult from a legal point of view, and from the position of protecting the rights of the Executive to have independent advice. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, sometimes those judgments are handled in a way that, retrospectively, might have been different. The national security element is obviously extremely important, and I pay tribute to all our intelligence services for the protection they give our country, but I believe that this Humble Address is quite different from any other that has been put before Parliament. This Humble Address is about corruption at the very heart of our democracy. In my view, the corruption does not relate to the current Government, although there are obviously differing views on their judgment and so forth. For me, this Humble Address is the route by which we will start to get to the bottom of what looks like a level of corruption that we have not seen in this Parliament in recent times. How we handle that and move forward is critical to all of us, and it is vital for public trust.

    Hansard source
17. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lord Mandelson

    I am not going to give away. We heard earlier about a discussion between members of the ISC and the Government, and I know that conversations are taking place via the usual channels, but I say to Government Front Benchers that what I have heard from the House today is that it wants the Government to cede control of the relevant documents to either the House or the ISC, regardless of whether those documents relate to national security or foreign policy. I have also heard that the House is very cognisant of the fact that this place will not see all the documents. The ISC may see many of those documents and we will not see them, but the issue for the Government is whether they can make the next step to cede control of those documents to this House and the ISC.

    Hansard source
18. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lord Mandelson

    I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I am aware that one of our Five Eyes allies gave a warning about Peter Mandelson. I do not know whether that is true, but I know that as a humble Back Bencher. The House now needs to know, because this is a House matter. If we do not deal with it satisfactorily, we will all be condemned by what has gone on. I urge Ministers to ensure that, in the next hour or so, the discussions focus on not just ISC involvement, but ISC oversight of all sensitive diplomatic or security-related documents. My second point is about the nature of the Humble Address itself. It is very tempting for the Government of the day to take a narrow view of what the Opposition have asked them, but as we heard from Opposition Front Benchers, there is evidence, or at least there are allegations, about Peter Mandelson’s time in Washington. That relates to who attended embassy parties and how UK Government contracts came about last year. In my view, we should now address all these issues and get them out in the open, so that we can fully understand not just what happened and the judgment of the Government, but what was behind the threats and what our allies were worrying about, which included China, Russia and many more things than just the corrupt act itself. This Humble Address should be regarded by the House, and particularly by the Government, as a vehicle. It is a vehicle for protecting our democracy, and for beginning to unpick exactly what happened, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

    Hansard source
19. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Lord Mandelson

    Could the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will also include details of how they managed conflicts of interest between Peter Mandelson’s shareholding in Global Counsel and his activities as ambassador? Specifically, could he look at the background and come back to the House about two contracts, one to Anduril technologies and one to Palantir? Those were direct-award contracts, and at least one of those companies was a client of Global Counsel.

    Hansard source
20. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson

    It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?

    Hansard source
21. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson

    Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.

    Hansard source
22. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson

    Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?

    Hansard source
23. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Lord Mandelson

    I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly, “did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?” He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.

    Hansard source
24. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason. The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions. We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.

    Hansard source
25. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister. I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public. Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied: “This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.” The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.

    Hansard source
26. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.

    Hansard source
27. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country. We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process. The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary: “did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?” All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was: “I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.” We have never had a full answer to that question. The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary. There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

    Hansard source
28. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe. These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.

    Hansard source
29. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.

    Hansard source
30. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said: “So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”. The permanent under-secretary replied: “Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”— I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.

    Hansard source
31. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Lord Mandelson

    I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance. I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had. I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
32. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson

    Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

    Hansard source
33. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson

    I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion. The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?

    Hansard source
34. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson

    Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Lord Mandelson

    I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?

    Hansard source
36. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Lord Mandelson

    We are all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I am not sure that we will make much progress if we are just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree. The reputation of the House is at stake, and what the Opposition have to do is hold the Prime Minister to account. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister. He and the Prime Minister have been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was made, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. That is a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake, so will the Minister now answer that question?

    Hansard source
37. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Lord Mandelson

    It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who participates a lot more frequently than I do in Opposition day debates. On the basis of the quality of the debate today, I should come along more often. The immediate background to this issue is the ghastly behaviour of Epstein, the sexual abuse, the child trafficking and all that goes with it. I asked the question the other day as to whether that sexual trafficking might involve not just women and girls but young men. That is unresolved at the moment, but perhaps we will find out more in due course. I wish to focus my remarks on the period going back to 1997—I know that is long before you were able to recall much about politics, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was when Mandelson was first appointed by Tony Blair as the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the millennium dome. The reason I recall all that is because there was a time when I was the shadow Minister for the millennium dome and also, for that matter, for the millennium bug. I recall well the way in which Mandelson enjoyed the opportunity to promote the grandiose new Labour scheme of the dome, which was to be the fourth largest enclosed space in the world. In the end, it cost £750 million and the number of visitors who attended the dome in 2000 was half what had been estimated. Mandelson was really proud of this, because it had a link with his grandfather, who must be turning in his grave. Herbert Morrison was a great public servant, and his grandson has betrayed public service in an enormous way. Herbert Morrison was involved with the Festival of Britain, and Mandelson thought that by being responsible for and promoting the millennium dome, he would in a sense emulate the great efforts of his grandfather. The project proceeded, and it was costing an enormous amount more than had been forecast by the Treasury or expected. Mandelson was in the business of looking for sponsorship for the dome, and he used agents, particularly Keith Vaz, who used to be a Member of this House but left in disgrace, and the Hindujas, to get some extra income for his dome project. The Hindujas offered £1 million for a faith centre inside the dome, but that did not happen by chance; it was linked to the fact that back in 1990, the Hinduja brothers had applied for British citizenship and been rejected. In 1998, under the New Labour Government, they saw an opportunity to rectify that and get their citizenship. What did they do? They engaged Keith Vaz. Through him, there was a relationship with Mandelson, and the £1 million towards the dome was forthcoming. In return, there was an acceleration of the passport application by Srichand Hinduja. He applied in the middle of ’98, his application was granted in January 1999, and his brothers’ passports arrived not long after that. There was an enormous amount of suspicion around that, and I remember, as shadow Minister for the dome, getting a good story on the front page of The Sunday Times, linking Hinduja with Mandelson and the money for the dome. I went off thinking I would be able to do the usual rounds, but the whole story was closed down by Alastair Campbell and Mandelson, who said it was a whole load of rot and that there was no truth in it whatsoever. At the time, Mandelson denied that he had any dealings with the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas, but subsequently, there seemed to be evidence that there had been dealings. We should bear this in mind: an inquiry was set up into whether there had been dealings between the Secretary of State and the Hindujas. Sir Anthony Hammond, a distinguished retired civil servant—I think he had been in charge of the Home Office and had been Treasury Solicitor—was asked to produce a report, which he did in 2001. That report totally exculpated Mr Vaz and Mandelson. A few weeks after that complete exoneration, more papers were discovered, amazingly. The inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond was reopened, which was quite an unusual event. On looking at the extra papers that had been hidden away, he discovered that there had in fact been dealings between Mandelson and Michael O’Brien, a very distinguished and honourable Labour Member who served at the time in the Home Office. Mandelson consistently lied, covered up, and behaved in a way that is totally unacceptable, and that was all that time ago in 2002, when Sir Anthony Hammond’s revised report was produced.

    Hansard source
38. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Lord Mandelson

    I do not know how much credibility the hon. Gentleman has given to people whom he knows to be serial liars in his professional life. That is the issue. If the Prime Minister was on an interview panel—in a sense, he was; he was interviewing his close friend for a job—he must have known that he was talking to a serial liar.

    Hansard source
39. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend makes a point that is typically made in court. When the defendant is found to be lying, one addresses the jury and says, “He has lied about that, members of the jury. How can you trust him to tell the truth about the charge that he is facing?” In public office, serial liars should not be tolerated.

    Hansard source
40. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Lord Mandelson

    If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.

    Hansard source