Lord Mandelson 2026-02-04

The appointment of Lord Mandelson was the Prime Minister’s responsibility. The House should explore exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether information was kept from him, and who might have withheld it.

Questioned whether any relationship between Mandelson and Epstein should have precluded his appointment to the role of ambassador. Suggested that a common view among Members was that such a relationship should have been considered disqualifying.

Commended the Conservative party for bringing forward this matter and suggested that all of Mandelson's dealings, including his five years as EU trade commissioner, should be part of a full investigation.

Highlighted the Foreign Affairs Committee’s request for Lord Mandelson to appear before them. Stressed that his failure to adhere to this request signals potential issues in the appointment process.

Pointed out the Prime Minister’s knowledge of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein when appointing him as ambassador, questioning whether this makes his position untenable.

Asked about the Prime Minister's candour in light of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and its subsequent disappearance from consideration.

Alex Burghart supports Sir Oliver Dowden's stance, citing his experience in national security matters. He calls for an independent ISC review and criticises the government for deciding what information should be disclosed. Additionally, he addresses concerns about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Jeremy Corbyn urges a broader inquiry into the 'gilded circle' surrounding Peter Mandelson and its influence on political processes in the UK. He views this as an issue of basic corruption that needs thorough investigation.

Claire Hanna criticises the use of national security as a shield for government embarrassment, referencing historical cases in Northern Ireland. She questions Alex Burghart about supporting a wider review into misuse of 'national security' claims.

Dame Meg Hillier challenges the Conservative stance, asking why they did not propose using a Select Committee instead. She expresses support for ISC involvement but questions the lack of transparency.

Sir Jeremy Wright clarifies the role of the ISC in scrutinising sensitive material on behalf of Parliament, questioning Alex Burghart's proposal that ISC acts as a filter rather than a direct scrutiny body.

Urges the Minister to involve the ISC in scrutinizing the process, as it would provide more confidence to the House and expedite progress. He highlights the role of the ISC in handling serious matters.

Stresses that involving the ISC is crucial for building public confidence, despite not impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary. He requests a confirmation from the Minister on this point and encourages him to make the case with Downing Street.

Suggests that pressing the amendment could be counterproductive, urging the Government to reconsider it. He believes involving the ISC would align better with the will of the House and facilitate moving forward on these issues.

Raises concerns about the lack of transparency in the process and calls for existing parliamentary mechanisms, such as Select Committees, to be utilized effectively. She advocates for putting victims at the forefront of scrutiny.

Critiques Peter Mandelson's conduct when he was in office, suggesting it represents a failure to represent constituents properly and undermines public trust in political figures. He emphasises the severity of Mandelson's alleged actions.

Questions why Peter Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador despite known issues with Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting the risk taken by the Government in this decision. He emphasises the respect for the previous incumbent, Dame Karen Pierce.

Reiterates that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein should be at the heart of discussions regarding Mandelson's conduct and highlights how their voices were initially ignored in favour of powerful individuals. She emphasises the importance of focusing on those affected.

The reputation of the House is at stake and the Opposition must hold the Prime Minister to account regarding whether he knew about Mandelson’s continued relationship with Epstein after the first conviction.

Peter Mandelson is a traitor, and it is important that the public have confidence in this process. The Minister agrees that the public's anger is justified.

There is concern about Government amendment (a), which does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of documents withheld. An independent ISC could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents.

The Minister mentioned that the ISC will be involved in the process, but it is unclear whether this means they will see documents or only scrutinise the process. The term 'international relations' needs clarification.

The House cannot see everything, and there should be a balance between transparency and national security. A manuscript amendment could ensure sensitive material is supplied only to the ISC rather than the whole House.

Describes the role of the ISC in handling sensitive information regarding foreign allies' correspondence about Peter Mandelson's appointment and calls for a commitment from the Minister to share such information. Emphasises the Government’s decision to strip Mandelson of his title through primary legislation.

Stresses that the debate is in response to victims' bravery and demands justice for them. Points out serious questions about Peter Mandelson's conduct, highlighting potential misconduct involving sharing sensitive information as a Cabinet Minister and calls for a public inquiry post police investigation.

Agrees with victims being at the heart of the process but seeks a full review and audit of Jeffrey Epstein's activities during his visit to Hillsborough castle, emphasising that the House should provide answers.

Questions the extent of friendship with known sex trafficker being deemed appropriate for senior diplomatic positions and highlights the public availability of information regarding Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

Expresses discomfort over the timing of revelations about Epstein’s crimes, suggesting that it has only come to light due to US government documents.

Emphasises the importance of transparency for public confidence and justice. Supports a full public inquiry with power to compel witnesses.

Highlights examples of powerful men involved in Epstein’s crimes, emphasising the need for accountability and justice for victims.

Stresses the importance of transparency to maintain public trust in government institutions. Criticises potential cover-ups by Labour governments.

Supports an independent, judge-led inquiry to thoroughly examine the matter without bias from individuals involved.

Questions the objectivity of the Cabinet Secretary in leading the Government investigation and supports a public inquiry with confidentiality provisions.

Raises concerns about the integrity of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, highlighting emails suggesting possible connections to Epstein. Emphasises the broader systemic issues that allowed such individuals to hold power.

Kearns challenged Thornberry, questioning whether her committee’s Clerks had advised her about concerns over Epstein's background. She also asked if Thornberry regretted calling the appointment 'inspired'.

Tice raised issues regarding trust in the Prime Minister’s judgment and questioned whether the Cabinet Secretary should be trusted to make decisions about document release, suggesting instead that this power should rest with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Mullan attempted to intervene but was denied by Emily Thornberry due to time constraints and the need for clarity in her points.

Simon Hoare supports Emily Thornberry's argument by quoting a letter from the Cabinet Secretary which clarifies that due diligence was carried out by the Cabinet Office and not shared with other departments.

Morton inquires whether Peter Mandelson underwent full vetting procedures similar to those of the diplomatic service, or if he simply went through a 'pet process' undertaken by the Cabinet Office.

McMahon suggests that having the Intelligence and Security Committee examine this issue would eliminate accusations of cover-up or conspiracy and ensure transparency in the process.

Smith argues that the Humble Address motion is unprecedented due to the level of corruption alleged, and urges the Government to cede control of relevant documents to the House or the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Kearns agrees with Sir Julian Smith's point about vague terminology used in the Humble Address motion, specifically regarding 'national security' and 'international relations'.

Bishop emphasises that trust in public life is crucial and argues that this scandal undermines efforts to restore faith in politics after previous scandals.

Highlights importance of independent oversight to ensure probity in such matters. Questions arise from disclosures about power and control.

Praises Matt Bishop for his bravery in standing up for what he believes is right, despite political risks. Encourages other Labour MPs to support him.

Argues that the existence of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Epstein should have precluded his appointment as ambassador in Washington. Advocates for an independent review by the ISC, citing trust vested in the Committee to handle sensitive issues.

Agrees that the amendment would just throw a cloak over sensitive issues and suggests engaging the Intelligence and Security Committee as the best way forward.

Van Mierlo welcomed the Government's promise to remove Lord Mandelson’s peerage but questioned whether legislation should also address Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession.

Stuart highlighted a story in the New Statesman suggesting the Prime Minister was directly sent a report detailing Mandelson's continued relationship with Epstein after his conviction. He asked if this report is true and whether it should be made public.

Kearns pointed out that when Mandelson was appointed as ambassador, the extent of his relationship with Epstein was already known. She suggested reconsidering any amnesia about this issue.

Billington discussed the broader implications of misogyny and potential criminal activity in public life, emphasising the need for transparency to address such issues.

Mr Flynn criticises the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador, despite his known relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He demands an unreserved apology from the Prime Minister to the victims of Epstein and calls for a police investigation into Mandelson.

Dr Arthur intervenes to question Mr Flynn's interpretation of events, suggesting that the debate should focus on how information can be released rather than grandstanding. He points out that Peter Mandelson hosted the First Minister of Scotland in Washington, raising questions about the extent of knowledge and judgment involved.

Ms Fleet underscores the importance of supporting victims and survivors. She is glad that more information will be made public but expresses anger at the careless handling of victim anonymity. She encourages others to use their voices to speak up against abuse.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle criticised the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as an ambassador, citing it as a risk that disrespected victims of Jeffrey Epstein. He also raised concerns about the Government's awareness of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein before his appointment.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East agreed with Dr Mullan, questioning whether it was worth the risk to appoint Mandelson despite his association with Epstein.

The right hon. Friend asked if the Government would support a manuscript amendment regarding the Intelligence and Security Committee, highlighting concerns over the adequacy of vetting processes before Mandelson's appointment.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire expressed concern about rising anger towards the Prime Minister due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein and questioned Labour Members' understanding of the situation.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills agreed that judgment was poor regarding Mandelson's appointment, citing known information about his relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness suggested that the Minister should clarify if Mandelson stayed in Epstein's flat while he was in prison, questioning the Prime Minister's judgment.

The right hon. Member for Leeds East focused on what was known at the time of Mandelson's appointment and cited a Financial Times report from 2013 that Mandelson stayed with Epstein in June 2009.

Chowns questions the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Mandelson, suggesting it is due to a desire to maintain good relations with Donald Trump. She also highlights the broader issues of political donations and misinformation.

Begum agrees that if the Government is serious about transparency, they must preserve and release all internal Labour party materials involving Mandelson for investigation.

Eastwood emphasises that trust in politicians is at an all-time low due to the affair and urges all parties to focus on addressing this issue rather than protecting their own interests.

Mr. Stuart supported Mr. Lamont's argument, stating that the Prime Minister’s appointment of someone who had broken all Nolan principles was untenable and raised serious questions about what he knew and when.

Ms. Creasy expressed concern over the scrutiny process for public appointments and suggested revisiting the role of this House in scrutinising such roles, particularly the capacity of Select Committees to object.

Mrs. Barker emphasised the importance of national security and called for the ISC oversight of the matter. She criticised Mandelson's self-serving actions and his disregard for national security, demanding an investigation into those who enabled him.

Mr. Corbyn highlighted the necessity to focus on the victims of Epstein's abuse and called for a full inquiry into Mandelson’s appointment and his relationships with powerful individuals, criticising the Government for attempting to avoid scrutiny.

Supports an independent inquiry into Labour’s involvement in civil service appointments. Points out the appointment of Jess Sargeant from Labour Together to a sensitive Cabinet Office post, questioning the impartiality of the civil service.

Defends his past collaboration with Peter Mandelson during an election campaign. Acknowledges the need for limits on political advisers' influence over the civil service but maintains that advisors should not run it. Urges a public inquiry to address patronage and corruption in politics.

Calls for the release of documents detailing decisions made regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, despite known links with Jeffrey Epstein. Considers past vetting procedures to be inadequate and lacking in detail.

Critiques the vetting procedure for Peter Mandelson's appointment and suggests pre-appointment hearings before Select Committees. Mentions his own rigorous background checks when hiring a community engagement officer.

Clarifies that her party, the Liberal Democrats, welcomed the Minister’s openness to involve the ISC in the process, correcting a previous misunderstanding by Dr Arthur.

Challenges Dr Arthur's claim of leadership and suggests that his Front Benchers changed their amendment due to expected voting patterns from Government Members.

Asks whether the hon. Gentleman would have voted for or against his own motion, which could put sensitive information into the public domain.

Describes the shocking revelations regarding Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and questions how someone with such a background was appointed as ambassador to Washington. Criticises the lack of interviews, due diligence beyond internet trawls, and inadequate conflict-of-interest procedures.

Raises incredulity over the failure to dispose of Peter Mandelson's shareholding in Global Counsel during vetting process. Emphasises that proper ethics and propriety would have prevented such an appointment.

Questions the vetting procedures for other high-level appointees, especially Jonathan Powell, given Mandelson's case raises doubts about integrity of these processes.

Suggested it is hard to believe that the Government did not ask about kompromat on Lord Mandelson, questioning why such information was not sought from US authorities.

Asked whether a thorough investigation into Peter Mandelson's activities was conducted after the Bloomberg leak, expressing surprise at the lack of follow-up action by the Government.

Inquired about severance payments potentially made to Lord Mandelson and called for transparency in such matters to protect taxpayer interests.

Questioned the clarity of responses given by the permanent under-secretary, suggesting they were evasive rather than helpful.

Acknowledged the united disdain in Parliament for Lord Mandelson's actions and praised colleagues from all sides for their contributions. Welcomed the Government’s proposal to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to oversee document disclosure, stressing the importance of transparency.

Complimented Andrew Lewin's remarks and congratulated the Government on proposing independent scrutiny by the ISC for overseeing the release of appropriate documents.

Stresses the importance of transparency to uncover the truth about Lord Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Believes in the need for all documents to be published.

Criticises the Labour Government and sections of the media for protecting Peter Mandelson despite his known connections to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry into the situation.

Supports calls for an apology from Mandelson due to financial implications of potential market-sensitive information leaks during his time in government.

Questions the judgment of the Prime Minister regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Criticises previous controversies involving Mandelson and calls for investigations into these matters.

Supports Jim Allister's call for European Commission and Parliament to investigate possible breaches of rules by Peter Mandelson during his time as Trade Commissioner.

Found it shocking that the Prime Minister knew about Mandelson's relationship with a convicted paedophile when appointing him. Believes this goes against any value his constituents would support and questions if the Prime Minister should stay in position.

Focused on historical background, citing Mandelson's involvement with the millennium dome project and alleged dealings with the Hindujas. Criticised Mandelson for lying about dealings with the Home Office in 1998 and being exonerated later when more evidence was found.

Asked if it is credible to know people who are serial liars, questioning the reliability of those involved in the process.

He describes Peter Mandelson as the inventor of New Labour, noting his influence on party branding and political strategy.

Supports Sir Christopher Chope's call for a public inquiry, emphasising the need to investigate Mandelson’s influence over candidate selection within the Labour Party.

She expresses gratitude for not having met Peter Mandelson and maintains her faith in the Labour party despite concerns about individuals like him. She criticises the high esteem given to such influential figures.

He suggests that Peter Mandelson played a direct role in appointing members of the Cabinet, questioning the Prime Minister's judgment and integrity.

She criticises the Prime Minister’s poor judgment regarding appointments involving Peter Mandelson, affecting trust in government decisions on various issues such as Chagos, China, and Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

He raises concerns about whether the Government sought information from US authorities to verify the suitability of appointing Mandelson, emphasising transparency.

He thanks Elon Musk and X for exposing corruption through freedom of speech and press. He also emphasises the importance of appointing a professional diplomat to replace Mandelson.

He expresses concern that proposed amendments might not ensure full transparency, urging the Government to set out clear frameworks for handling sensitive information related to public inquiries.

The Government's refusal to release documents until forced by a motion demonstrates a toxic culture. The Prime Minister knew about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein but still appointed him, risking the careers of Labour Members who supported this decision. This goes beyond enabling Epstein; it speaks to the rot at No. 10 and requires scrutiny into Mandelson's influence in Government.

The Prime Minister resisted revealing when he knew about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, indicating that this information is damaging to his government. This demonstrates a lack of transparency and accountability.

Mandelson was sent as ambassador to America despite knowing he had connections with Epstein, which is unacceptable. The question is how Mandelson managed to maintain influence over successive Governments.

Saqib Bhatti's remarks about Peter Mandelson’s role in candidate selection are misleading; during my tenure on the Labour party NEC, Mandelson had no such role. The reach of Mandelson may be more limited than suggested.

Mandelson’s involvement in recruiting Labour candidates and possibly Cabinet reshuffles demonstrates his extensive influence, raising questions about the integrity of those who enabled him.

The Prime Minister's judgment is deeply flawed, having appointed Peter Mandelson despite knowing of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. The MP urged for the emails and conversations between them to be made public to hold the PM accountable.

Saqib Bhatti's speech was powerful and wide-ranging, highlighting the shocking nature of appointing Mandelson despite his association with Epstein. The Prime Minister should not defend his actions.

The Prime Minister brought Peter Mandelson in as a strategic adviser for the 2024 Labour general election campaign, despite knowing about his friendship with Epstein. This taints all Labour Members.

Labour's failure to investigate grooming gangs shows their lack of respect for women's rights and protection. The PM should be held accountable for his judgment errors.

Calls for transparency and accountability regarding the Prime Minister's judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson. Emphasises the importance of vetting processes, especially when it comes to appointments involving national security issues. Mentions that full due process was claimed by the Government but questions remain about the integrity of those involved.

Critiques the Prime Minister for appointing Peter Mandelson despite knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and seeks to hold the Prime Minister accountable through further questioning.

Agrees that there is a lack of trust in politicians and expresses concern over those who have been involved in unethical behavior advancing within public life due to their connections. Questions the Prime Minister's judgment and integrity.

Supports Wendy Morton’s argument on the importance of trust in politics and criticises the Prime Minister for showing misplaced trust in Peter Mandelson, leading to a lack of proper process and judgment.

Urges the Government to do the right thing by emphasising that the issue is about the Prime Minister's judgment and integrity. Questions why the Prime Minister ignored public knowledge regarding Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

Cites an example of Mandelson's communication with Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting the problematic nature of his appointment despite being aware of such connections. Emphasises the ethical concerns and calls for accountability.

Agrees with Alicia Kearns, criticising the lack of scrutiny and proper vetting for political appointments. Highlights that officials were not present during secret visits by Jonathan Powell to China.

Reiterates concerns about Morgan McSweeney's role in the appointment process, suggesting lack of accountability. Criticises the Prime Minister for sending a junior minister instead of addressing questions himself.

Agrees with Alicia Kearns that the Prime Minister should address serious questions rather than delegating to a junior minister.

The Prime Minister has made a significant error of judgment, yet his Back Benchers continue to defend him. This could cause detriment to the whole Government and may lead to further instability.

There is a need for urgency in addressing this issue to prevent it from turning into another scandal like past inquiries which were delayed. The House should demand clear assurances about how quickly files will be turned over and documents released.

The House should remain cautious and not accept the Government's amendment without clear assurances on how far inquiries will go regarding commercial interests, ensuring a thorough process of reporting and a timetable to avoid a superficial review.

We need an assurance from the Government that they will act with urgency. There must be a commitment on how quickly files will be turned over to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

Emphasised the need for clarity from the Government on whether the ISC can release individual documents and not just a report.

Agreed with Dr Luke Evans, wanting to know if the ISC could give the gist of sensitive documents without full release. Called for assurances that document review would not be delayed indefinitely.

Asked whether the ISC will receive sufficient resources to handle a large volume of documents effectively.

Defended the Prime Minister's actions, stating that he was lied to by Peter Mandelson. Acknowledged the need for transparency and stated the Government would review Human Resources decisions made during Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador.

Pressed Chris Ward on why the Prime Minister felt it was appropriate to appoint Peter Mandelson despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Emphasised that this went beyond vetting and questioned the Prime Minister's judgment.

Called for a thorough investigation into Epstein’s crimes, emphasising the responsibility of the House to ensure justice for victims and pledged to halve violence against women and girls in government actions.

Asked if Foreign Office Ministers had reviewed all HR decisions made during Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador, expressing concern for the well-being of staff who may have been affected by his presence.

Inquired about administrative resources available to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in reviewing the documents covered by the motion. Requested reassurance that additional resources would be provided if necessary.

The Minister confirmed that documents will be released either by the Cabinet Secretary or handed to the ISC for decision-making, ensuring no political interference. He also stated that the direct contract award involving Peter Mandelson is within scope and will be reviewed independently.

Asked the Minister about conflicting messages regarding the scope of document release and timelines. Pressed for clarification on whether the direct contract award would be in scope, questioning the previous statement by the Minister that it was out of scope.

Asked for assurance from the ISC about their ability to decide what documents should be released without interference. Emphasised that the ISC would make decisions on publishing documents without being dictated by external forces.

Inquired about timelines and assurances regarding the volume of material anticipated for review by the ISC, as well as deadlines for release into public domain or to the ISC. Highlighted concerns over the potential delay in releasing sensitive documents.

Clarified that documentation will go to the ISC, and asked whether the ISC would be the decision-maker on matters related to national security and international relations, as well as what should be in public domain.