Lords Chamber

Thursday 5th February 2026

(began 1 hour, 52 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:08
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to the Most Reverend, our right, trusty and well beloved councillor Sarah Elizabeth, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and Metropolitan Greeting.

Whereas our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our United Kingdom and the church is now met at our City of Westminster, we strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and love by which you are bound to us, that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses, you be personally present at our aforesaid Parliament with us and with the prelates, nobles and peers of our said Kingdom, to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid, and this as you regard us and our honour, and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit witness ourself.

At Westminster, the fourth day of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reign. I, Sarah, Archbishop of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Sarah, Archbishop of Canterbury, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I do I do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to the right. Reverend, our right trusty and well Reverend, our right trusty and well beloved Joanne Woolley, Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Greeting. Whereas our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our United Kingdom and the church is now met at our City of Westminster, we strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and love by which you are bound to us, that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses, you be personally present at our aforesaid Parliament with us and with the prelates, nobles and peers of our said Kingdom, to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid, and this as you regard us and our honour, and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit witness ourself.

At Westminster, the 12th day of reign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Joanne, Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich, do swear by Almighty God that I will be by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Oral questions: The jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy
-

Oral Question Lord Hunt of Wirral. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, over the 34 years since Peter Mandelson was elected to Parliament, he has been to Parliament, he has been disgraced and rehabilitated by successive Labour leaders. The Prime Minister brought him back into the fold for the final time. As our ambassador to the United States, we now have a partial explanation of how Mandelson operated. Secretly, he and his partner were in receipt of electronic cash transfers from a notorious paedophile and child sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, as money and benefits in kind flowed their way, he casually passed state secrets to back to his benefactor.

Epstein's crimes were appalling paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. We must not forget his victims who suffered at his hands and are still suffering today. It is right that Mandelson is no longer a member of your Lordships House. It is right that there will be an internal investigation into Mandelson's behaviour, and it is right that the police will investigate any potential criminality. My Lords, while Peter Mandelson's conduct is deeply disappointing, it is the Prime Minister's decision to appoint him as the UK ambassador to Washington, which almost defies belief.

Mandelson's claim, in the years preceding his appointment as ambassador to the United States had been that he did not continue his relationship with Epstein once the latter had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution. Thanks to the excellent work of the Financial Times, it was already public knowledge in 2023, before Mandelson's appointment as ambassador, that this story was a lie. The Prime Minister now freely concedes that he was fully aware of this fact at the time he appointed Mandelson.

My Lords, I suspect many in your Lordships House will, like me, find the Prime Minister's decision to overlook this startling fact a complete dereliction of duty and an illustration of an appalling lack of judgement. The Prime Minister was under no pressure to appoint Mandelson. There were many able and distinguished career diplomats from whom he might have chosen. Indeed, there are many able and distinguished career politicians he might have chosen, and who, crucially, had not become embroiled in a disturbing private relationship with a known paedophile.

I do not propose to ask the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal to explain questions of conduct and judgement which the Prime Minister himself is seemingly incapable of explaining. So instead, I wish to focus on what we on these benches feel ought to happen. Next, though it is clear the Prime Minister disregarded the disturbing revelations made in the Financial Times, it is not presently clear whether the extensive security vetting to which Mandelson was subject had identified either the flow of payments from Epstein or the deeply compromising nature of the relationship between the two.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm whether officials in the UK sought information from the US government in respect of the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson, and, if so, what information was shared? We are separately told that there shall be an internal government investigation led by the Cabinet secretary. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has revealed publicly that he wrote to the Cabinet secretary in September asking for a review of any further communications between Epstein and Mandelson, only to be told by way of answer that no relevant material had been identified.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, also tell the House why, in light of this, the internal Cabinet Office investigation is being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary. Would it not be better for this investigatory process to be led by somebody who does not report to the Prime Minister, and whom a former Labour Prime Minister has not essentially accused of a cover up? Yesterday, the Other place voted to require the government to lay before the House all papers relating to the ambassadorship appointment.

That is essential if the government is to regain trust. After this sorry saga. The government caveated the humble address to exclude papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. Such material will instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of both houses. Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, assure the House that all relevant material will be made available to the ISC, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister will seek to use their powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to prevent that committee from publishing its findings in full.

My Lords, it is not sufficient for any of these investigations to look only into historic behaviour or focus solely on Mandelson's links with Epstein. Unfortunately. Jeffrey. Jeffrey Epstein was not the only rich man of dubious repute whom Peter Mandelson was known to share a close friendship. We need to know how Peter Mandelson conducted himself while serving as our ambassador in Washington. Did this conduct continue there? Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that neither the Cabinet Office investigation nor the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prevented from looking into all evidence relating to how Peter Mandelson has conducted himself, including while serving as ambassador.
12:17
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My hon. Friend Lisa Smart said >> My hon. Friend Lisa Smart said in the House of Commons yesterday. We are having this debate today solely because of the women and solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women's bravery in speaking up about their experience at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out.

We owe these women justice and we owe it to them to make changes, to create a system that works. I agree with those words profoundly. One of the most upsetting elements of the release of the information from the United States has been the network of enablers who have been rich, wealthy, connected, and the casual nature of how they treated vulnerable girls and young women. We agree with the Prime Minister on one element that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must proactively work with any authorities who may wish to take this forward.

I tribute tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has raised associated issues about how we make changes to uphold our how we carry out our politics and our refer to those in a moment. We called for and we are happy that the police are now carrying out investigations into Peter Mandelson's activities. But we believe that there needs to be a public inquiry now for the wider circumstances. We've raised this and we hope that the government will accept the need for serious questions to be answered, not just on process, but also on judgement and actions.

The Minister, a Minister this morning to the media, said that when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, that the government was relying on an established vetting process. And while I know that the Cabinet Secretary cannot reply in this House to questions that's raised as a civil servant, I think that there are questions with regard to the ability of securing independence in the process going forward with the role of the Cabinet Secretary, and any process going forward now must be conducted independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary.

We are usually we usually believe, that enhanced vetting procedure for our most significant diplomatic postings should address if the person who is being vetted lies. So this is it is not acceptable simply for the Prime Minister to rely on the fact that Peter Mandelson lied. That is the point of an enhanced vetting process. But if there are elements of that process that are set aside because of the relationship, either the Prime Minister or the judgement, the Prime Minister, then we have to ask very serious questions, especially when the Prime Minister knew of contact of Peter Mandelson with a convicted paedophile and a financial relationship that had been reported as long ago as the dispatches programmes.

In 2019. There is also a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest from Peter Mandelson of lobbying interests, and clear information was provided with regards to using public office for public gain. Why was this overruled in the appointment of him as our ambassador? We welcome the government's change of heart with regards to supplying information to the ISC, and we look forward to their work being carried out in a very speedy way. But we also believe that the ministerial code now must be looked at very considerably.

There is little point in having a ministerial code, which is self-policed by the Prime Minister, if indeed processes under that are where there are so clearly conflicts of interest with regards to this House. If Peter Mandelson had not resigned from this House, we have insufficient mechanisms of expulsion for those who bring the House into disrepute. These benches have called for action for this prior to the general election, and we do so again today. We will work with the leader and across the House to bring about changes.

We need to act now before we are asked to do so. About Michelle Mone to a self-regulating house needs to get its own house in order. We also need to act immediately to remove Peter Mandelson from the peerage role, to stop him using that title for the future. Retirement from this House doesn't mean doesn't automatically mean the removal from the periods role. It should be unacceptable for him to be able to trade on a peerage title in the future, which has allowed for if someone is continues to be on the peerage roll, so can the leader.

I checked this morning, he's still on it and I would like to know if the leader can give an indication if the government are moving on that area. We will also support the government to accelerate any legislation to move him from the peerage, to remove his peerage entirely. He cannot be allowed to trade on a title after betraying his own government. This House and the public trust of someone who held public office. It is a privilege to serve in this House, not a right, and there are obligations on someone on the periods role, but insufficient means of correction, and they need to be addressed and addressed on a cross-party basis and urgently here.
12:22
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Can I thank both the noble. >> Lady and the noble Lord for their comments and questions? I their comments and questions? I think for all of us, the thing at the forefront of our minds is those who are victims of a vile paedophile, and how powerful people had a network that not only was there no respect, but it was almost as if they were casual playthings for their benefit. And it is quite an horrendous thought.

And the consequences of that last with those young girls and women for the rest of their lives, with often tragic consequences for them, for them personally, those who know them. So I think I just firstly, a lot of this would never have come to light had it not been for their bravery to stand up, be identified, which is a huge thing to do and speak out. So I think on all of this, that's the thing that's been at the forefront of my mind.

And one of the things I find most distressing on it all, just on the point of the questions on security vetting and investigations as much as possible, needs to be in the public domain. And I think it's absolutely right. And I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee taken on that role. So everything that is deemed to be in some way identified as a matter of national security, that will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. And I said to a lot of people at the moment are feeling very betrayed that their trust has been abused.

And if you look at the world outside, they basically think you can't trust any politician. Now, we know from our work in this House, and many of us have worked in politics for many years, that trust is actually the cornerstone of what we do between parties and across parties. And when that trust is betrayed, the people that fit it the most keenly are often those who have put their trust in people who never earned it and didn't deserve it. And I think that's something to reflect on for all of us going forward as well.

And that's why it's so important that information should be made as public as possible. It is a frustration, though completely understandable, that there is some information the police have said can't be released yet because they don't want to have the integrity of their investigation. So information has been passed to the police. But if there's to be justice, particularly for victims, then that has to be information the police and will decide. So with that caveat when that is available, but the information has been given to the police and to the Is.

So we'll do that as a matter of some urgency. I can give her that assurance. Most definitely. The noble Lord. I think my only point of difference with him is on a public inquiry. I'm sure that will be looked at in due course. Partly my experience of public inquiries. I initiated public inquiry as a Minister, and it took something like 17 years for it to report. And that length of time to me is completely and totally unacceptable. What we have to do is do this quickly but thoroughly, and one should not compromise the other.

So there needs. I think another points he made about vetting and going forward, there is an established process which was followed. If that process is found to be inadequate, that needs to be looked at. He also raised the issue. So the noble Lady raised issue and he did about who undertakes this. The Cabinet Secretary will have the guidance of an independent KC at all times on this one, and we'll meet regularly with the ISC. So precise details have yet to be worked out how that happens, but the key is to ensure that all information is released.

There is no desire on anybody's part to try and hide something. Cover up. It has to be very transparent. The noble Lord referred to lobbying interests and public office for profit. It is. It's not just about the minimum serial code that was updated. And this Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code so that the adviser on this, the person in charge of ministerial code, can initiate inquiries without reference to the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister's giving a greater independence to that.

But I think this goes beyond that, and that some of the emails we've read about information being given to an individual who may or may not have used it, we don't know, is something that needs to be investigated further and information is available to the police if that is part of their investigations. The noble Lord also asked about our own mechanisms in this House. Being a member of this House is an immense privilege and honour. I remember being in the other place.

In order to sit on those benches, I had to face an electorate and knock on doors and talk to people. It was a long process and I could be deselected and unelected as I was. We don't face that in this House. We are appointed at the moment. We are appointed for life unless we choose to retire. And of course, we have a committee now looking at the participation issue. And we have and also a retirement age. But I think we do need to go further.

And the Prime Minister has said this as well, that if standards are as such, that we feel someone should not be a member of this House, do we really think it is appropriate for them to retain that title for life? It is not appropriate and it should not happen. The government is preparing that legislation. I will work with all parties on bringing that forward. I do want to ensure we get this right. That's not a reason for delay. It's just to ensure thoroughness because there are this may not be the only case we ever have, and I think I want to ensure that this House can hold its head up in the future to ensure that we believe in the integrity of every single member of this House.

And so getting that right, ensure that it is legislation that has a long term sustainable application will be really important. So I bring that forward and discuss it. He also mentioned the code of conduct. Can I say I'm grateful to the noble Lord Kakkar? I wrote to him on Monday in light of this, to look at our own code of conduct. And do we think that is fit for purpose? We did say in our manifesto we strengthened the circumstances for the removal of
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page