-
Question
On a point of order to Mr Speaker regarding the statement on rebuilding trust in public life following revelations about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Can you provide clarity on any specific areas that require further explanation or investigation?
Minister reply
The Chief Secretary provided an update on ongoing work addressing ethical and transparency issues raised by recent events. He committed to continuing updates as the situation develops.
-
Question
Given the importance of security vetting in diplomatic appointments, can you provide a timeline for implementing new processes that require candidates to pass through national security checks before being announced or confirmed?
Minister reply
The Government will work on this urgently. The aim is to implement changes swiftly to ensure robust and thorough vetting for all relevant ministerial roles.
-
Question
Welcomes the statement regarding security vetting processes before diplomatic appointments are announced or confirmed. Raises a point about the Foreign Affairs Committee's belief that Peter Mandelson should have been seen by the committee before his appointment to Washington, and suggests writing into rules that political appointees must appear in public before such committees.
Minister reply
Thanked for her question. Acknowledges the importance of the process for appointing ambassadors and states that the security vetting process will now be completed before announcement and confirmation. Confirms that pre-appointment hearings are under review but mentions that the Foreign Office has informed the Committee it is entitled to invite ambassadors to answer questions.
-
Question
I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him... The ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants such as ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. We must ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign Administration from donating to political parties, think-tanks or campaign organisations...
Minister reply
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we can all agree that we need not just effective rules but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. These issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do, and I look forward, as do the Government, to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that, as she said, we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.
-
Question
In December 2025, Palantir won a three-year contract from the Government worth £240 million. The contract, which is three times larger than any that Palantir has previously won, was awarded without tender. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency about how this decision was made and who was involved? Does the Minister agree that resignations under the last Government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured?
Minister reply
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration.
-
Question
Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House?
Minister reply
On the first question from the Chair of the Select Committee, I do not for one second question the supremacy of Parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege; all I meant to say was that the Government are in discussions with the Met police, who have launched a criminal investigation, and that it is important that we work with them to ensure that information that is released does not then affect their criminal investigations.
-
Question
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?
Minister reply
The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today.
-
Question
I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards... However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box...
Minister reply
On the first question, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standards system, both in this place and the other place, that meets the challenges we are talking about. That is not a party political issue. I merely referred to the performance of the last Government given the chuntering from those on the Opposition Benches when I talked about the reforms that we are bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to tackle corruption in the future.
-
Question
I think it is worth reminding my right hon. Friend that one of the things that people keep going back to is that a decision was made that this appointment was “worth the risk”, and we finally found out that some people decided that the rules did not apply to them... Considering how important tackling violence against women and girls is to this Government and this Prime Minister, would my right hon. Friend agree to meet women Back Benchers in particular to discuss the possibility of exploring further how we tackle misogyny in public life?
Minister reply
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome.
-
Question
It is jaw-dropping how many rich and powerful people were within Epstein’s orbit, and how many of them believed that they were untouchable. It is important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers... Does the Minister agree that we need to have an office for whistleblowers as the backbone of such a positive culture?
Minister reply
I agree with the hon. Member that we need to ensure that those processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is that the legislation was updated in recent years, but I am happy to consider any inputs from him and other Members if they wish to send them to me.
-
Question
Could my hon. Friend confirm the actions that the Government have taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to being announced or confirmed?
Minister reply
I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages.
-
Question
Everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now. All this stuff was known in conversation and discussion and Peter Mandelson was sacked twice for impropriety, yet he ended up on Deripaska’s yacht. Why did the Prime Minister appoint him as our ambassador? Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister's judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post. Had he seen the information from the US Department of Justice, which showed not only the level of corruption but the deep and extensive relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, he would never have appointed him in the first place.
-
Question
My biggest concern is that the impact of behaviour like Peter Mandelson’s undermines trust in our politics and democracy. Can this Government get a grip of this, and end the sleaze and scandal culture?
Minister reply
The vast majority of Members come into politics to serve the public, not themselves. The Peter Mandelson issue has shown that there have been loopholes for people who want to do wrong things. We are now going to close those loopholes.
-
Question
The statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?
Minister reply
The Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords, which includes removing hereditary peers.
-
Question
What steps have the Government taken to ensure that victim-survivors of these vile crimes are heard by those in power?
Minister reply
The Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and introducing measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced.
-
Question
Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?
Minister reply
The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked.
-
Question
In addition to looking at improved vetting, are the Government looking at how we can have improved surveillance and vetting of those in a position of trust?
Minister reply
The Government are pursuing a number of avenues, including potential for more routine annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests.
-
Question
Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from Government twice if the Prime Minister wished to appoint them?
Minister reply
The public do not expect party political bickering on these issues; they expect problems to be solved. Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister.
-
Question
Peter Mandelson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment. As a former regulator, I know that clawback is an important tool. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Minister reply
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Foreign Office will come forward with more information in due course.
-
Question
Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister elaborate on how the Government will work with the Committee on Standards on proposals to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament?
Minister reply
The Government are working with the Committee to move forward as quickly as possible. The Committee wishes to do the same.
-
Question
The Minister is asked to clarify the Prime Minister's knowledge of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and what he needed to know before taking further action.
Minister reply
There will be papers disclosed in due course showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.
-
Question
What lessons does the Government draw from previous cases involving poor judgment in appointments?
Minister reply
There must be clear rules and consequences for people who lie or breach those rules, which are being brought forward as reforms.
-
Question
What advice did the National Security Adviser give to the Prime Minister regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment?
Minister reply
The hon. Member will know it is not appropriate for me to speak on behalf of civil servants or special advisers, but Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post was answered in statements released by him and Keir Starmer.
-
Question
Does the Minister agree that we must cap political donations and ask all MPs and peers to release logs of lobbying meetings?
Minister reply
The Government are looking at updating procedures for more transparency, but cultural issues leading to challenges need to be addressed cross-party.
-
Question
Why did the Prime Minister believe someone who took large loans should receive a high position?
Minister reply
The reforms being made by the Government will be wide-ranging, and if the extent of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was known at the time, he would not have been appointed.
-
Question
What steps are being taken to mitigate human error in appointments?
Minister reply
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill includes criminal sanctions for those who breach rules and the Minister is open to considering further recommendations on whistleblowers.
-
Question
Why did the adviser suggesting Mandelson’s appointment have to resign, but not the Prime Minister?
Minister reply
The Prime Minister apologised for his appointment and acknowledged that if he had known the depth of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein at the time, he would not have appointed him.
-
Question
Is it not simply time for the Prime Minister to resign given his poor judgment?
-
Question
Does the Minister believe tweaks to process are enough to prevent such appointments?
Minister reply
If the Prime Minister had known about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein at the time, he would not have appointed him.
-
Question
What is being done to address employment tribunal backlog for whistleblowers?
Minister reply
The Minister is open to receiving further representations on reform of the law relating to whistleblowers.
-
Question
What type of vetting will be applied to political appointees and ministerial appointments?
Minister reply
Different processes apply for different roles, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which is being reviewed right now.
-
Question
Why do the Government not just get rid of the Prime Minister?
Minister reply
The public voted to end chaos at the last general election, and this Government is delivering change for people across the country.
-
Question
Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?
Minister reply
I refer the right hon. Lady to my previous answer.
-
Question
Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored... Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland?
Minister reply
It is important that we take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons where reforms have not worked, whether it is in our Parliament or in devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I assure him that the Government have no intention or desire to try to limit the voices of people in this House or anywhere else.
-
Question
Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service?
-
Question
May I take the House back to where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), reminding us that advisers advise and Ministers decide... If it is right for an adviser to resign, why not the far more culpable decision maker?
Minister reply
As the Prime Minister has made clear, he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador. Had the information that is now available been available at the point of his appointment, the Prime Minister would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.
-
Question
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward?... Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?
Minister reply
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the detail of my statement.
-
Question
Many of us, including myself, spoke in this House against the ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandelson... Will the Chief Secretary undertake to obtain all redacted evidence from the US pertaining to all UK persons in positions of influence referred to in the Epstein documents and expose them to the public?
Minister reply
Where the Government have jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the Humble Address, we will publish them, as I said to the House earlier today.
-
Question
The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment... Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?
Minister reply
Those processes are administered by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and by all the normal, appropriate authorities.
-
Question
The Chief Secretary is an honourable man. He is answering incredibly difficult questions... Does he believe that that can be achieved without a complete overhaul of the appointment system?
Minister reply
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; a number of changes evidently need to be brought forward. As he suggests in his question, that should be done on a cross-party basis in the interests of how we serve the public.
-
Question
Confidence in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low... Will the Government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at that meeting? Will the Government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with it until the investigations are completed?
Minister reply
The Prime Minister engages with a whole host of businesses, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad... We have powers under the Procurement Act to act on these issues if we must. If evidence comes to light, we reserve the right to do so.
-
Question
The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment... I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?
Minister reply
As I have said, the Foreign Office will update the House in due course.
-
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement... Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closet advisers, should he not do the honourable thing and take his own advice?
Minister reply
The Prime Minister, as he said today, is getting on with the job of delivering the change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago... I know that Members across the House will want to work with us to ensure that that is done.