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·Dr Luke Evans

   Lord Mandelson

   We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating: “which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?

   Hansard source
2. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Lord Mandelson

   Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?

   Hansard source
3. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Lord Mandelson

   Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.

   Hansard source
4. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?

   Hansard source
5. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   Does the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee regret describing the appointment of Peter Mandelson as “inspired”, and did she know of his ongoing relationship with Epstein prior to his appointment?

   Hansard source
6. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   I think that, by refusing to believe the victims over Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson is an example of misogyny, and I think the Prime Minister, by deciding to appoint someone who remained friends with Epstein, is an example of passive consent. Does the hon. Member agree?

   Hansard source
7. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Actually, in writing my speech, I had people like her in mind: the Labour MPs who I know are genuinely passionate about tackling violence against women and girls. They use that passion to criticise us, and what we did or did not do in government—and I respect that—and sometimes to criticise their own Government. It is those MPs that the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. It is those MPs who I do not think would ever have agreed to the judgment the Prime Minister made, that it was “worth the risk”. This is not some hidden or secret position that the Government took; a Minister said on the record in an interview that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was “worth the risk”. What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What was it worth? It was worth disrespecting, denigrating and betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to take. I do not think it is a risk that the hon. Member for Bolsover would have taken, or the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), or many of those other Members; they would have made a different judgment. There is a pattern here, and those of us on the Opposition side of the House know what it is like. When Prime Ministers are weak and struggling to maintain their authority, they will go further and further in doing things that their own Members do not want them to do, in order to save their own skin. Members can come to regret supporting that.

   Hansard source
8. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and I say this as a Back Bencher who stood up to my Government because I realised what was happening and was not willing to be dragged into those situations. I do not speak from a position of self-righteousness. I have been in that position and I did what I thought was the right thing at the time. I suggest to Labour Members that they think very carefully about this, because we had an admission today. After months of trying to get it out of the Prime Minister, it was drawn out of him by the Leader of the Opposition that he knew that Peter Mandelson had continued his association with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him as ambassador.

   Hansard source
9. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Lord Mandelson

   I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially. I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.

   Hansard source
10. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high. Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    As I said, both the Prime Minister and, as we understand it, his chief of staff decided that it was worth the risk. There was lots of distraction today at Prime Minister’s questions from a Prime Minister who did not want to accept that it was his judgment on the line, including on further police investigations, and on other things that Mandelson had done and things we did not know about. What we all knew, and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the ambassador to the United States of America.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense. I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.

    Hansard source
13. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    Rumours abound that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to bring forward something that Labour Members feel they can vote for. Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Members should not forget the fact that the Government were willing to try to make them vote for the original amendment?

    Hansard source
14. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    We know that there is one thing that Mandelson did not lie about, because the Prime Minister knew it and said so today: that he continued his contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. There were no lies in that, and the Prime Minister admitted that he knew it. Defend that!

    Hansard source
15. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    My hon. Friend mentioned the revelations that are coming out of the emails. The point I made earlier—it is also very important that the Minister responds to this—is that the Government could have asked the US Department of Justice, “Is there anything in the emails relating to Mandelson that has not been released and could affect our decision to appoint him?” Nothing was stopping them from asking the DOJ that question, and it is vital that we know whether they did or not.

    Hansard source
16. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    I think the fact that the Prime Minister resisted giving that answer for so long proves that he knows it is incredibly damaging to his Government that he did not want people to know that he had known and appointed Mandelson anyway.

    Hansard source
17. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Lord Mandelson

    It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.

    Hansard source
18. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Engagements

    I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?

    Hansard source
19. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Lord Mandelson

    The transparency point is really important. Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician and this is a Labour Government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and that no one knew anything about what he was doing until this document release last week, but the public will wonder, and they will question. If a Labour Government cover up things by being anything less than fully transparent, the public will wonder who they are covering up for, and why.

    Hansard source
20. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Lord Mandelson

    The right hon. Lady is making strong and clear points about the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson. The Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister’s questions that he knew the relationship was ongoing, and he knew that at the time he appointed him. What sort of ongoing relationship with a non-related convicted paedophile is acceptable to the right hon. Lady for someone who is meant to represent our country on the world stage?

    Hansard source
21. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Lord Mandelson

    The Prime Minister said clearly today that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job as His Majesty’s ambassador, he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with the paedophile Epstein. Can the Minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable when appointing such a person?

    Hansard source
22. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Teenagers’ Use of Social Media

    The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?

    Hansard source
23. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Lord Mandelson

    The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?

    Hansard source
24. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Lord Mandelson

    May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job. I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?

    Hansard source
25. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Lord Mandelson

    The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?

    Hansard source
26. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Postal Services: Rural Areas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), and to the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for a useful tip; perhaps if I had put my grandson Theo’s birthday card in a parcel, it might not—even though posted first class from Moffat to Troon—have taken three weeks to arrive. Fortunately he is only two, so he has not held it against me, but my constituents have had similar experiences. First, we have to pay tribute to our posties, because what is happening is not their fault. It is the direction that is coming from above that is at fault, and the obsession with parcels. Royal Mail is meant to deliver mail, not just parcels. It is not a parcel delivery company. I hope the Minister can reinforce that message. In my constituency, Royal Mail has taken many steps to make it less attractive for people to post mail, particularly, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, the surreptitious introduction of early collection times. If someone wants to post a first-class letter, in many parts of my constituency they have to do it before 9 am, otherwise they have to travel an inordinate distance. In rural communities in particular, people still often suffer from poor broadband and mobile reception, and are generally older. That is the group of the population for whom the Royal Mail and its services is most important. I pay particular tribute to Barry Knock, the chair of the Quothquan and Thankerton community council in the Clydesdale part of my constituency, who has constantly held Royal Mail to account for its failures. As we have already heard, if someone is off or sick, the mail is not delivered. The Minister is an experienced campaigner, and he knows that it is quite different sending somebody out into a modern housing estate to deliver something than sending them into a vast rural area. We need people who know those localities to do that job. I want the Minister to take away a specific issue: we are heading into elections for the Scottish Parliament and other elections, and a large number of people in these rural communities have a postal vote. I want the Minister to be able to tell me that he is satisfied that Royal Mail has the capacity to deliver the postal votes and return them to the election officers, because that is a very significant issue. Those deliveries did not go well, certainly in my constituency, during the 2024 general election. When Members raise issues with Royal Mail, they just get excuses; hopefully the Minister can put a rocket up the company.

    Hansard source
27. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Postal Services: Rural Areas

    The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) made a very important point about the last mile. Something that really concerns me and my constituents is the sustainability of the Royal Mail in that context, because delivery companies are taking on deliveries, but they leave the hard bit—going up the track, or the miles into the valley—for Royal Mail to do. I cannot see how that can be sustainable.

    Hansard source
28. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Opposition day debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite: Oleg Deripaska. That relationship may be just as bad as the one he had with Epstein. As European trade commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Deripaska’s company by $200 million a year. Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Deripaska. How can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his Government appointed Mandelson as a Minister? Do you agree that this House needs to see that information, and if so, how can we obtain it?

    Hansard source
29. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Lord Mandelson

    I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?

    Hansard source
30. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Engagements

    Q4.   I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?

    Hansard source
31. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the appellants were instructed by public interest lawyers including one Keir Starmer QC. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to return to the House and clarify his earlier remarks.

    Hansard source
32. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.

    Hansard source
33. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I do not think it is appropriate during points of order specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee to raise that matter. It is not for the Chair to rule on comments by other Members during the course of the debate.

    Hansard source
34. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.

    Hansard source
36. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.

    Hansard source
37. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comment that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards if he has failed to declare interests during the debate.

    Hansard source
38. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    I did ask the Member to withdraw his comments. He now has the opportunity to do so.

    Hansard source
39. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record. If there are no more points of order, I call Wendy Morton.

    Hansard source
40. 4 Feb 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Lord Mandelson

    Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?

    Hansard source