← Back to House of Commons Debates
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
01 June 2026
Lead MP
Darren Jones
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Parliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 30
At a Glance
Darren Jones raised concerns about lord mandelson humble address: government response in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister provided an update on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of February 4, which includes laying down the second tranche of documents related to Peter Mandelson's appointment and vetting process. The publication comprises one of the largest Government disclosures ever laid before the House and cost the Cabinet Office over £1 million. The Chief Secretary emphasised that senior officials undertook this official-led process with careful judgments until today’s publication, ensuring no material was redacted without the Intelligence and Security Committee's approval. He also clarified that redactions were made outside the ISC process for reasons such as national security, international relations, junior officials’ identities, third-party data protection, and legal professional privilege. The minister confirmed that no Minister or special adviser determined any of these redactions; they were overseen by Cabinet Office officials in consultation with an independent King’s Counsel to ensure compliance with legal obligations. He acknowledged the need not to prejudice ongoing criminal investigations involving the Metropolitan police, which necessitated withholding some documents pending the conclusion of those investigations. The minister also addressed concerns about missing messages and meeting notes, attributing this to multiple rounds of discovery from relevant individuals using work and personal devices. He emphasised that a review of non-corporate communications channels use is already committed by the Government, reflecting on lessons for better note-keeping and IT system usage in future. The statement concluded with updates on Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process and the discharge of duties as per the Humble Address.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The MP criticised the timing of document publication, stating only a few MPs could see them this morning. He argued that documents should have been published at 9:30 am to allow more effective scrutiny.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledged the criticism and expressed his commitment to transparency but noted the need to balance it with not prejudicing ongoing criminal investigations by the Metropolitan police. He reiterated plans for a general debate on Wednesday for further questions.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The Member thanks the Minister for advance sight of his statement but criticises the late publication timing, arguing it limits proper scrutiny. He questions access to documents given only a few Members had early copies.
Minister reply
Jones acknowledges the need for adequate time for scrutiny and confirms efforts were made to provide advanced copies to select stakeholders while adhering to legal constraints from ongoing investigations.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Question
The Member thanks the Minister for document access but questions specific redactions regarding Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest, national security risks, and related mitigations. She asks whether such documents exist or if they will be released.
Minister reply
Jones responds that certain documents may not yet be available due to ongoing police investigations.
Question
The Member thanks the Minister for document access and acknowledges victims of abuse. She raises concerns about pressure on vetting processes, lobbying by Mandelson, and Government use of non-corporate channels like WhatsApp. She calls for meaningful reforms to the second Chamber and enshrining ministerial code in law.
Minister reply
Jones avoids commenting on intent behind conversations and highlights ongoing reviews into the use of non-corporate communication channels. He confirms plans to modernise the House of Lords through legislation.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Question
The Member recalls previous concerns about national security risks posed by certain individuals and expresses concern over widespread use of WhatsApp for government communications. He asks when a review into non-corporate communication channels will be published.
Minister reply
Jones confirms the importance of full transparency in vetting interviews and announces that terms of reference for reviewing non-corporate communications channels will be announced shortly.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?
Minister reply
I look forward to engaging with the right hon. Gentleman in the general debate on Wednesday, and I commit to answering questions that are put to me.
Rachael Maskell
Lab
York Central
Question
It seems that Mr Mandelson’s business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon, we are to debate the Health Bill and the federated data platform. Palantir, a client of Peter Mandelson’s, will clearly have a specific interest hardwired into the Bill, and we are expected to vote on it without seeing the full documentation, or having time to digest it. What exactly was the relationship between Mr Mandelson and Mr Thiel, and was that disclosed in the interview process?
Minister reply
I am not at liberty to answer specific questions about Mr Mandelson’s vetting process as I did not see those documents, but I can assure my hon. Friend that Palantir references have been disclosed except for normal commercial processes.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Question
First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful. Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here: security clearance being concluded before announcement and clarity on vetting requirements for members of the Privy Council and House of Lords. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned?
Minister reply
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for providing oversight of Government processes. Security clearance should be concluded before announcement, and guidance will be strengthened on vetting requirements.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
Question
The challenge for all our constituents is that every time this subject comes up, they cannot shake the sense that Peter Mandelson’s business interests hang like a grubby layer over decision making in this Government. Can he reassure me that the Adrian Fulford review will be published and what it will include?
Minister reply
The review has not concluded within expected deadlines, but I commit to returning to the House as soon as the report is ready.
Question
The documents show that in July 2025, Peter Mandelson contacted No. 10 to suggest that the Prime Minister should meet Peter Thiel while he was in London and described him as a “celebrated techie”. Can the Minister confirm whether this meeting happened? Also, will the Government review all links and contracts between Palantir and the Government?
Minister reply
I cannot confirm if the follow-up meeting happened without checking parliamentary questions. The Health Secretary has confirmed that there is an ongoing review of Palantir’s contract.
Question
Can I ask about one further area in which Ministers are keen to improve: our lobbying transparency regime? When might the House expect some progress, or to hear thoughts about how we could make that more effective, given the learnings from this episode?
Minister reply
The Government have learned much from my hon. Friend's expertise and will accelerate work on non-corporate communications channels, peerage removal in the House of Lords, lobbying transparency, and other areas.
Question
Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to opening and closing Wednesday’s debate so that every Member can ask him questions?
Minister reply
My colleague the Paymaster General will open the debate, while I will answer all questions in closing it.
Question
Given Morgan McSweeney’s name being copied into many messages, these disclosures show the need to return to the role of Labour Together. Can the Minister tell us whether any third-party redactions relate to figures associated with Labour Together and when we can expect a full independent investigation?
Minister reply
I refer my hon. Friend to earlier answers about calls for an investigation into Labour Together, which is privately owned outside Government.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee West
Question
Given that the key person in this scandal, Lord Mandelson, refused to hand over his personal WhatsApp messages, how can the Government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth?
Minister reply
Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that.
Question
It is very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador, and I know that we will all have Epstein’s victims in mind today. It is right that the Prime Minister has called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. In view of the comments from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the removal of peerages Bill, which appeared in the King’s Speech, will actually have teeth, and will enable us to radically reform the upper Chamber?
Minister reply
We are concluding internal drafting of the peerages Bill, and will look to secure time to introduce it in this Session. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to introduce legislation that is effective and meaningful; that is certainly our intention.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?
Minister reply
Let me make two points. As I made clear in my statement, vetting documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan police, although some of the documents have gone through the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said previously. As has been clear, the Foreign Office did not flag this information with the Prime Minister; he was not aware of it until it had been leaked to The Guardian.
Question
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement, and I associate myself with his comments about Epstein’s victims, who must be at the forefront of our minds. However, a significant amount of material in this tranche was reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Is the Chief Secretary able to tell the House what steps officials took to ensure that any documents relating to national security and our international relations have been shared with the ISC?
Minister reply
As I confirmed in my statement, more than 300 individual documents were put before the ISC for its consideration of proposals from the Government for redaction. There were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process, when agreement was sought between the Government and the Committee, and all redactions currently published in the documents have been made with the full agreement of the Committee.
Question
Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?
Minister reply
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. In relation to the time made available to read the documents, I refer her to the general debate on Wednesday, which she is perfectly able to attend.
Question
Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and I look forward to the day that we can remove him as a peer. Even now, he makes a mockery of this process by not releasing his messages. Is there anything that the Government can do to compel Peter Mandelson to provide the information that this House seeks?
Minister reply
I am afraid the Government have powers to compel disclosure from Government employees, Ministers and special advisers, but do not have powers to compel disclosure from third parties outside our employment. However, the Metropolitan police will be conducting a criminal investigation, and I am sure there will be disclosure through the court process, should a case be put forward by the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.
Maldon
Question
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?
Minister reply
The communication of the Prime Minister’s decision does exist in the first tranche, where his principal private secretary drafted a letter communicating the Prime Minister’s decision to the relevant stakeholders.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Question
All of us have a significant amount of reading to do to fully understand how the good friend of a convicted sex offender was rewarded with a top job, but it remains obvious that Epstein’s victims simply were not on the radar of the boys’ club in control at No. 10. The Minister can come to his place again and again and again, but how does he justify the culture that was in power at the time?
Minister reply
I gently point out that No. 10 is not occupied solely by men; there are very senior women who work in the Labour party and the Labour Government. In relation to the sentiment of the right hon. Lady’s question, which I agree with, it is important that we have a diversity of views and a diversity of inputs into the decision-making process, regardless of whether decision makers are in Government, business or elsewhere.
Gavin Williamson
Con
South Staffordshire
Question
Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?
Minister reply
All of the Prime Minister’s messages have been disclosed in the bundle, in the same way as those of every other Minister.
Jeremy Corbyn
Lab
Islington North
Question
May I take the Minister back to the answer given to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) earlier? Palantir is a very big and very dangerous outfit. The Government are developing a close relationship with Palantir—platforming and so on. Could the Minister assure the House that everything to do with Palantir will now be paused until we can get to the heart of the matter of how it first became embroiled in Government contracts, how it gained them and what its influence over this Government is, particularly via Peter Mandelson?
Minister reply
I slightly challenge the assumption that the Government are developing a “close relationship” with Palantir. As far as I am aware, that is not true. I think Palantir has been awarded two or so contracts for Government services, and it continues to bid for services. In line with our procurement policy, it is for Departments to decide whom they give contracts to, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: there are a whole range of issues that, in line with procurement policy, Ministers and officials will need to consider, including the protection of people’s personal data, the conduct of companies, and their ability to deliver public services in line with our values.
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement. The media are going to have a frenzy over the tittle-tattle of all this stuff during the next three days, but to my mind the whole Mandelson affair represents a very serious breach of national security. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that the Foreign Office and the security services are turning over with a fine-toothed comb every minute of Lord Mandelson’s time as ambassador to make sure his actions in that office were in the national interest?
Minister reply
I can confirm, as I think I have from the Dispatch Box before, that officials are conducting that review of documentation. We are also making sure, through the review conducted by Sir Adrian Fulford, that we avoid these situations happening in the future. In particular, Departments will have the right not to take the recommendation of UK Security Vetting when appointing people to developed vetting status.
Question
I was staggered to find in the 1,500 pages published today that the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are not referred to in any of the documents dated before Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The only reference to Epstein’s victims is an email sent after Mandelson was sacked. Victims and survivors should never be an afterthought, and they clearly were in this case. How will the Government ensure that the trauma of Epstein’s victims and survivors is never betrayed again?
Minister reply
I would first say to the hon. Member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and subsequently from the United States Department of Justice showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein that nobody was aware of—nobody was aware of that until that information became public—but that does not excuse the point he makes in his question. He is right that, as I have said at the start of every statement from the Dispatch Box on this issue, while we debate all these procedural issues about WhatsApp, security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this are the most atrocious crimes—unimaginable to all of us—by Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many young women and girls. We know that this is not just confined to Jeffrey Epstein; sadly, violence against women and girls is a more widespread issue. The Government are working hard in trying to tackle that issue, in line with our commitment to halve it over the course of this Parliament.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Question
The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?
Minister reply
I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.
Question
On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor stated that every meeting was about who to tax in order to pay benefits. Is this the same experience he is having?
Minister reply
No.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
The general public view these continued delays as obstructive and are concerned about accountability. Will the Minister ensure that these delays end, the material is released, and the public are assured of accountability?
Minister reply
I take seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account and have ensured that relevant Committees have full access to documents and additional time for questions.
Question
There is an email from Olly Robbins dated 16 September 2025 stating he has not seen potentially crucial documents regarding the appointment of Peter Mandelson, while Chris Wormald stated all appropriate processes were followed on that same day. Can this be true?
Minister reply
That is an important question, but I am unable to answer as I was not privy to those discussions at the time.
Shadow Comment
Alex Burghart
Shadow Comment
The Conservative MP welcomed the Chief Secretary's advance sight but criticised the timing of document publication, which was made available at 9.30 am yet published at 2 pm, limiting members' ability to scrutinise them effectively before today’s statement. The MP argued that this delay undermines effective parliamentary scrutiny and could be seen as an attempt to obfuscate or deny proper examination. He stressed the importance of making documents accessible earlier so that Members can prepare more thoroughly for questioning.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.