← Back to House of Commons Debates
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
27 April 2026
Lead MP
Darren Jones
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
TaxationEmploymentParliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 36
At a Glance
Darren Jones raised concerns about lord mandelson humble address: government response update 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 Government provided an update on the progress made in response to the Humble Address of February 4, which concerns Peter Mandelson's appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador. The first tranche of material was published on March 11, primarily covering details about his severance payment and other related matters. A significant number of documents are still being processed across Whitehall departments, with a focus on electronic communications and meeting minutes. Due to the volume and scope of the material, processing is ongoing but thorough. Certain information cannot be disclosed due to legal privilege or national security reasons; over 300 prejudicial documents have been identified and passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The second tranche will be released as soon as possible after state opening and ISC's work concludes.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The Conservative MP asked for confirmation that the conflict of interest form exists and whether it is being retained as personal information. He also sought clarity on redactions and the ISC's role in document retention, questioning if the Government can provide a catalogue of all documents to be released, even if they cannot disclose their content.
Minister reply
The minister responded by acknowledging the importance of transparency but noted that certain documents are withheld for national security or legal reasons. He confirmed that material related to Mandelson’s vetting is being handed over to the ISC and stated that a full release will be made as soon as possible after state opening, ensuring no prejudicial information is released.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The Conservative MP questioned the delay in instructions to hand over non-corporate communications and asked how the Government can be sure that material was not deleted during this period.
Minister reply
The minister acknowledged the concern but noted that processing a large volume of documents requires time. He assured the House that efforts are being made at pace to ensure thoroughness without compromising security or legal constraints.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The Conservative MP pressed for a hard deadline on when these documents will be handed over.
Minister reply
The minister reiterated that the release date is contingent upon the completion of ISC’s work, which ensures no prejudicial information is disclosed. He committed to returning to the House at the earliest opportunity after state opening and ISC's review.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Question
The Government have repeatedly stated that they are working to release documents related to Peter Mandelson's appointment, but no progress has been made since February. What is the timeline for releasing all requested documents? Why was there a delay in issuing instructions for non-corporate communications and ensuring nothing was deleted during this period?
Minister reply
Documents are currently being processed by three entities: the Government, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), and the Metropolitan police. The ISC is reviewing security vetting documents related to Mandelson's appointment today. Redactions will be made on grounds of national security or international relations, following established procedures with the ISC.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham
Question
Will there be a guarantee that no documents are being withheld? Are civil servants still seeking to withhold information related to Mandelson's appointment?
Minister reply
The Cabinet Office was clear about the need to publish relevant documents. Some time was required to access specific UKSV recommendations, which are now going through the ISC.
Question
Will the Government revoke Lord Mandelson's peerage and introduce legislation for reform of the House of Lords? Will there be any redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations in the documents being sent to the ISC?
Minister reply
Legislation will be introduced soon regarding reforms to the House of Lords, including potential removal of peerages. Redactions policy is in line with established guidelines.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
Question
When can we expect the Adrian Fulford review to be completed? This review aims to identify any other cases where concerns have arisen about government appointments.
Minister reply
The work on the Adrian Fulford review has started and is expected to take three to four weeks.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Question
The right hon. and learned Gentleman thanked the Minister for his statement, raised concerns about the speed of document processing by the Intelligence and Security Committee, questioned the grounds on which documents will be redacted beyond the Humble Address exemption, and inquired whether the ISC or the Government would determine what information undermines national security or international relations.
Minister reply
The Minister thanked Jeremy Wright for his questions. He stated that the Government aims to ensure proper transparency with Parliament and committed to seeking further advice on specific redactions questions raised by Jeremy Wright. The Minister confirmed that it will be the Intelligence and Security Committee, not the Government, to determine whether information undermines national security or international relations.
Rachael Maskell
Lab
York Central
Question
The hon. Member asked about the costs associated with complying with the Humble Address process and requested publication of these costs as well as any costs related to Global Counsel’s engagement with the Government.
Minister reply
The Minister referred Rachael Maskell to the contracts finder tool for procurement contract values, confirmed that internal cost estimates involve civil servant time, and committed to publishing documents as quickly as possible.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Question
The hon. Gentleman thanked officials for assistance in his work on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and asked about securing communications between principal players who use personal devices, emphasising the importance of parliamentary privilege.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that all relevant stakeholders were informed to include personal devices and channels in their considerations for the Humble Address process.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Question
The hon. Member asked about security vetting clearance of Morgan McSweeney at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment.
Minister reply
The Minister reassured Richard Burgon that all appropriate processes were followed, but could not comment on individual applications of policy for private individuals who are no longer employed by the Government.
Question
The right hon. Gentleman inquired about potential free votes regarding a referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee.
Minister reply
The Minister responded that such matters pertain to individual judgments and not to statements before the House.
Question
My hon. Friend asked how due process for security vetting will change as a result of recent issues.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that post-appointment vetting was previously standard, but now vetting takes place before the announcement and commencement of employment.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern about potential whipping of a referral to the Privileges Committee.
Minister reply
The Minister referred Desmond Swayne to his previous answer.
Question
My right hon. Friend asked whether documents previously in scope of the Humble Address have been deemed out of scope due to litigation privilege regarding Olly Robbins.
Minister reply
The Minister committed to taking this question away.
Question
The hon. Member questioned whether ISC disagreements will be brought back to the House for a decision and highlighted that it is inappropriate for the Government to judge their own homework.
Minister reply
The Minister referred to his previous answer about standing by the commitment made between the Government and the Committee.
Question
My hon. Friend inquired whether documents will be put into the public domain before being cleared by the Met police, expressing concern over compromising a police investigation.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that no such documents would be released without clearance from the Metropolitan Police to ensure victims receive justice.
Question
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He said that, 'in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.' That sentence is correct, but it implies that this is a Government process that the ISC has acceded to, and that is not quite right. Rather, the Government propose redactions and the ISC considers them and directs which ones should be made.
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman sets out the process that has been agreed between the Committee and the Government and, as I have said to other members of the Committee, that process stands.
Question
This has been a very damaging issue. Peter Mandelson should clearly never have been made ambassador, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised. There are, however, lessons to be learned already before the end of this Humble Address process. Can the Minister confirm that his Department has already started learning and implementing those lessons?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
Question
Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?
Minister reply
Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.
Question
With regard to the release of these Mandelson documents, there is genuine concern about what may be redacted and what may not. Given the ongoing dispute as to the pressure brought to bear between No. 10 and the Foreign Office, can the Minister confirm that nothing will be redacted with regard to pressure brought to bear on the Foreign Office about the vetting process?
Minister reply
Redactions are done in line with the policy I set out previously.
Question
I politely say that the Minister’s overly sincere, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth act is beginning to wear thin—the way he suggests that the process he is going through has not put a foot wrong. He has repeatedly failed to answer questions that I put to him with candour around Mandelson, despite the fact that this evening we will pass a Bill that makes it law for Ministers to answer questions. Can I follow up on the questions around mobile phones? Ministers will be asked whether they have any communications left on their personal phones. Are they also being asked to tell you, and will we be told, if those messages have disappeared because they have disappearing messages on their phones?
Minister reply
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not happy with my performance—I will try harder in future. In relation to his question, I refer him to my previous answer.
Question
What is the Department’s internal deadline for concluding the release of the Mandelson files? If there is an internal deadline, who will be held accountable if the Department fails to meet it?
Minister reply
The Department has now handed over all the final documents that it needs to hand over to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Once that process is able to conclude, we will publish the second tranche shortly after that.
Alec Shelbrooke
Con
Elmet and Rothwell
Question
The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?
Minister reply
I answered that question in my opening statement. All final documents relevant to the ISC process are being handed over today.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Question
Today’s statement is interesting, but we need to remember how we got here in the first place: the Prime Minister is facing allegations that he misled the House about the process by which an individual was appointed who had well-documented associations with a convicted paedophile and human trafficker. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that the Committee of Privileges is reserved for the most serious allegations. Does he recognise how that belittles what has been suffered by the victims and survivors?
Minister reply
I am not quite clear what the question was in relation to the Humble Address. In relation to the Committee of Privileges motion before the House tomorrow, I refer to my previous answer.
Question
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?
Minister reply
I am happy to reconfirm that all redactions are in black in the documents that are being published in the Humble Address tranches. All documents that the Government hold in relation to that period of time have been published in the first tranche. Of course, decisions are communicated sometimes orally and sometimes in writing. The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about Simon Case’s advice and the process that was followed subsequently. I refer him to the letter published this afternoon from the previous Cabinet Secretary, who confirmed to the Prime Minister that due process had been followed.
Question
How does the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering honesty, integrity and accountability reconcile with the potential blocking of a motion to the Committee of Privileges? If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is not willing to comment on the Government’s voting intentions tomorrow, will he commit to accountability by ensuring that he votes in favour for it being referred to the Committee?
Minister reply
I am not sure that I should declare my voting intention from the Dispatch Box, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister: 'To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.' It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?
Minister reply
I am deeply grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement— he is a decent and honourable man. In phone calls to my office only this morning, Strangford constituents have expressed their dismay about Government cover-ups. Even my constituents’ bank account comings and goings are questioned, and when they make withdrawals, they are asked where their money is from and what it is for. There is a perception out there that there is one rule for the Government of the day and another for everyone else. How can the Minister begin to show people that we are all accountable to scrutiny?
Minister reply
The Humble Address is an example of Parliament holding the Government to account, and of the Government being accountable to Parliament.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
Question
Could the Chief Secretary confirm that responses to submissions are written on the paper of the submissions, and not on Post-it notes?
Minister reply
I assume that to be the case.
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement, in which he said that 'the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.' My question is: in whose judgment? Ultimately, is that the judgment of an official or of a Minister? If it is that of a Minister, which one?
Minister reply
In the first instance, officials make those judgments and refer those requests to the Intelligence and Security Committee, where parliamentarians take a view.
Question
One of the glaring omissions in the first release of documentation was the Prime Minister’s response to his box notes about the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Government have now had three months to think about it. Will the Minister set out whether there is any reason why those documents will not be part of the next release?
Minister reply
All the documents that the Government hold in relation to the initial appointment and subsequent dismissal have been published in the first tranche, and all subsequent relevant documents will be published in the second.
Question
When asked why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, the Prime Minister said it was a routine meeting. Does the minister agree that this was a routine meeting, and if so, where is the record of it as required by the ministerial code?
Minister reply
As the Prime Minister stated, the meeting was part of a series of visits during his stay in the US. Photos were taken and published on the Government’s social media account. Closed-door meetings between Ministers and stakeholders are attended by officials, minuted and reported as normal.
Question
The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does this form exist?
Minister reply
All relevant documents will be published in the normal way.
Question
The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? What has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?
Minister reply
The Cabinet Office has processed all the documents ready for the second tranche. In relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee, those final documents have been sent or will be sent today. Officials screen each document to see if they engage international relations or national security and warrant a redaction request.
Shadow Comment
Alex Burghart
Shadow Comment
The Conservative shadow minister criticised the delay in providing documents requested by the Humble Address, questioning whether it is a cover-up or a breakdown of government processes. He asked specifically for details on conflict of interest forms, security vetting materials, and electronic communications between key figures. Burghart also questioned the five-week delay before instructions were given to hand over non-corporate comms and sought clarity on redaction practices and ISC's role in document retention.
▸
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.