Lords Chamber

Tuesday 17th March 2026

(began 1 hour, 54 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
None Portrait Oral questions: BBC World Service Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-

>> Second. >> Oral Question Baroness Royall of Blaisdon. >> I beg. >> Leave to ask the question.
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
None Portrait Oral questions: Representations to Fujitsu on making an interim payment towards the costs of investigation and redress in the Post Office Horizon case. Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Arbuthnot.
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
their families at the forefront of our minds. I pay tribute to the brave women and girls who were abused by him, and who have spoken out and called for justice, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons on the 4th of February that Peter Mandelson, when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, lied repeatedly. To date we are yet to see evidence of those lies, but we do now have proof that the Prime Minister was directly informed that Mandelson had maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter had been convicted for child sex offences.

Upon receipt of this information, the Prime Minister, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, did not undertake a searching inquiry for the truth but instead left it to two personal friends of Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew, now Lord Doyle, to engage in a farcical form of due diligence consisting of questions we are yet to see and answers which continue to be withheld. As if that were not concerning enough. It has been reported in the times that no written record of the appointment of Mandelson exists.

My Lords, I find this extraordinary as others who have, like me, worked in Downing Street know, there simply has to be an audit trail to transmit the Prime Minister's decision. The decision, we are asked to believe, was made in an. In an informal meeting with senior advisers and it is worth at this stage that the House should pause to recollect that a previous Prime Minister was heavily criticised by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges report of the 15th of June, 2023, when, in making statements to the Commons, he relied upon assurances that did not emanate from senior permanent civil servants or government lawyers.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say whether the Prime Minister misled the House of Commons when he gave the assurance that full due diligence was followed? Does she accept that the sole basis upon which the Prime Minister gave that statement was the undocumented assurances of two personal friends of Peter Mandelson. Turning to other matters, why was Peter Mandelson paid £70,000? The government's argument is that not paying him would have resulted in a claim in the Employment Tribunal, with associated costs to the taxpayer.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain why the government did not have the courage to stand up to Mandelson to ensure he would not receive a penny of taxpayers money? Following his dismissal? The Prime Minister has said on the record that Mandelson acted dishonestly to gain the post of ambassador. If that is true, surely Mandelson's case would not have been successful at the tribunal. Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, understand why the public are so angry about this? He should not have received a penny.

My Lords, when we last repeated a statement on the government's response to this Humble Address, I asked whether the government would publish a schedule which would show which documents are being withheld and which are being published. I did not get an answer then, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said in the other place, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan Police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. Yesterday, the official opposition reiterated the need for this, given at least 56 documents are thought to be missing.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say whether that advice has been sought? When will the government give a formal answer to this important question, which has already been put to Ministers a number of times for the sake of public confidence in the process that Ministers and officials are following in response to the Humble Address, we must be able to see the amount of information that is being withheld and for what reason? My Lords, evidence we have already seen shows that the Prime Minister knew as a fact that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein.

After the latter's conviction, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was unfit to be our ambassador, but he appointed him anyway. He allowed two of Mandelson's personal friends to synthesise an entirely farcical, illusory form of due diligence. At the end of this, the Prime Minister placed into our most prestigious and pivotal diplomatic post a man who is a man who is, as a matter of public record, already known to be a serial liar. Surely the truth is that the misplaced trust is not that of the Prime Ministers in Peter Mandelson, but the trust the British people placed in the Prime Minister at the last election, a trust which all too many now fail to have been entirely misplaced.
15:40
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord Willis hesitate to criticise the due diligence process by the security services and the civil service. It seems to have been effectively and efficiently done, but disregarded by the Prime Minister's political advisers and overridden by the Prime Minister. He presumably thought that the task of establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Trump demanded someone like Peter Mandelson in spite of, or even because of, his flaws. Can the Minister tell us when further files will be released? I've just looked through the first package of that has been released.

It's actually very thin and there's clearly an awful lot more to come out. And just to repeat, there's a lot to come out, not just from London but also from Washington, which will overlap onto this. I'm sure the whole House will be happy that the Minister has been appointed by the Prime Minister to look further into this, and we will all do our best to cooperate with her in making sure that standards and procedures are improved. Can she tell us more about what she sees her work programme as being in her new responsibilities on ethics and standards? Will this work be primarily within government, or will it be as far as possible across the parties? And both houses, to make sure that, as far as possible, it gets the maximum buy in from everyone concerned and interested in politics and will therefore have the best chance of succeeding.

Will she, for example, consider strengthening parliamentary oversight of major public appointments, which is, after all, a common occurrence in a number of other parliamentary democracies. Can you tell us how the government proposes to strengthen further the ministerial code? Will it commit to regular revisions with advice from committees in both houses? Does she recognise that the case, which many of us keep making for putting the Ethics and Standards Commission and Acoba and a number of other things on a statutory basis, is a matter of future proofing.

We do not know what the outcome of the next election will be. It could be extremely messy and lead to some form of coalition government or whatever, and we need to make sure that we are future proofing our standards and commitments to make sure that any new government which comes in will find it easier to accept them than to override them. We have plenty of lessons from Washington of how easily things can go wrong. We need to make sure, as far as we can, to prevent them similarly going wrong over here.

Can you say a little about implications for the House of Lords? I note that the Conduct Committee is being charged with a rather difficult task of looking at our standards. The Leader of the House the other week reprimanded me for referring to us as a part time house, and she replied that we are now effectively a full time house. Yes, we are, but the way in which we are managed and governed still assumes that we are part time, that we earn other things outside the house, and that that requires us to have a different set of concerns about private interests and commercial and financial interests and activities outside than the Commons.

If we are now to be judged on the same level as the Commons as a full time house, that's quite a radical readjustment of the way in which one thinks about the second chamber. Can I also ask a little about what happens when peers are disbarred from the House, whether the government will consider putting before the House the idea that they should no longer be able to hold their titles, just removing them from the peerage role would be perhaps a more important way of signalling that they no longer have a position of honour within our political system.

Behind all this, there are some broader issues, of course, about the financial and political culture in London and in Washington and in New York and in Westminster, wealth and money in politics is something which we are all going to be facing as the representation of the people's Bill arrives in this House in a few months time, we will need to look at that very carefully. I hope we may be assured that the government will work with us to make sure that money does not override other matters in our life.
15:45
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
May I thank both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions? These are matters. Which are incredibly important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which are incredibly important. That need to be addressed, not least because they now drive a huge amount of my own personal work. But I will come on to that. My Lords, I would first like to provide an update following the statement made update following the statement made last week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in the other place on the release of the first tranche of documents in response to tranche of documents in response to the Humble Address motion of the 4th of February.

As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister stated, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority and Peter Mandelson's behaviour, including encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight his conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl, was an insult to them and their suffering. We should also never forget that every time we discuss Epstein's horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences and these survivors must be front and centre.

When we debate all issues related to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact. That is why there is a cross-party consensus in both houses for full transparency and accountability. The government is committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address and last week published the first tranche. These documents relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the to the US, and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. Further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in scope.

The government recognised the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep your Lordships updated as that work progresses. My Lords, the Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for Peter Johnson's appointment as ambassador. He has acknowledged it was a mistake and apologised, not least for believing Peter Mountains lies. Whilst the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Madsen and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which only became apparent after the release of files by Bloomberg and then the US Department of Justice, as the Chief secretary to the Prime Minister set out last week, there are specific documents that this government would like to disclose, but the Met Police have asked us not to do so yet in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigations.

Peter Mandelson We have agreed to that request. We will publish these documents in future. Once the Metropolitan Police have confirmed it will no longer prejudice their investigation. My Lords, the government have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system. I would like to update you on the further steps we will take. As noble Lords will be aware, the government has asked the Conduct Committee of your Lordships' House to review the Code of Conduct, to consider what changes are required to ensure members of your Lordships' House can be removed when they have brought the period into disrepute.

We are also exploring whether the Committee can further strengthen the rules on lobbying and page advocacy. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also announced that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and I look forward to receiving their report from before the summer recess. My Lords, the Chief Secretary also confirmed that we will conduct a review of the National Security Vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to the Mandelson case.

With regards to some of the specifics that were asked, I think some of the questions from Lord Alderdice will be slightly easier for me to answer, given that they're in my direct purview. But with regards to some of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, my Lords, we have been clear that there are a series. There are many more documents which will follow in coming tranches. I'd like to be clear that even that any concern that the noble Lady has about who's seeing what and when, while it is.

While we have stated that we are withholding some documents at the request of the Met Police, we have agreed with Simon Hoare MP, the chair of the PAC and the. Of Pacac in the other place, that he is seeing all documents that are being withheld. So there is a member of His Majesty's opposition who is seeing everything as we are going through them. It is also incredibly appropriate that, given the scale of what we are doing and the fact that we are trying to and we are complying and will comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Humble Address that we are, that we're releasing the documents in such a way that is sensible given the nature of them, but also that the eyes are seeing them so that they can deal with them.

I want to assure noble Lords that all the documents will be published. Noble Lords will just and noble Lords have the opportunity to see all of them. But given the live police investigation, we have to take this step by step. I just want to touch on the 56 documents. I've read, the paperwork related to the 56 documents. I don't recognise the 56 documents, but the noble Lady did ask me a specific question about whether legal advice has been taken on the schedule.

My Lords, I have not seen that, but I will revert to her if such if such advice exists. Noble Lady also asked. Questions whether the Prime Minister had misled the Commons. He absolutely has not, and his comments all the way through are in line with the paperwork that is being released in each tranche. I think there's the bit of paper I was looking for in terms of some of the specifics raised by the. Obviously she is. The noble Lady is aware that I can't comment on the procedure on the privileges committee of the other place that was Parliament holding a former member to account.

But she asked specifically about some of the things that we have already done, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Actually, I'm going to touch actually on the question of the severance payments, which was a core theme from the noble Lady, as the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment, more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister as the chief secretary to the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable.

The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher, further costs involving a drawn out legal claim at the Employment tribunal. Given Peter Manson's employment as a civil servant rather than a Minister. As noble Lords will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the Employment Tribunal. Let's hope I am not experiencing that soon. But civil servants are treated differently. As you can see from the documents, Peter Manson settlement was in line with his employment contract and standard civil service HR processes, avoiding the risk and high cost of drawn out legal action, ensuring he was quickly removed from the payroll.

As set out in the documents, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved this payment in line with standard HMT guidance on the use of severance payments. I've already touched on the issue of vetting, but I want to spend a couple of moments just responding to the questions of Lord Wallace, given that this is regards to the question about the release of further documentation, given that this is a request supported by both houses, but about the Commons and complying with Commons, obviously we need to lay those documents in front when the house is sitting.

So those documents will be will be come forward in due course. It's just where the recess gets in the way or not, but either before or after. With regards to my own work program, I look forward to discussing many details of that with members of your Lordships' House, not least Lord Wallace. I truly believe that if we are going to rebuild faith in in politicians and in what I consider to be one of the most important buildings in the country, then it has to be a cross-party, cross-government and cross parliament project.

So I really would actively seek to work with all members of your Lordships' House on where we believe the gaps are and what is realistic about what we can fix, but also how we can rebuild trust. With regard to the ministerial code revisions. And I would not be surprised that, unlike his colleagues in the Other place who suggested that we may want to put it on a statutory footing, that is not something that we will be seeking to do. But what I do want to do, and I'm very aware of what the noble Lord said about future proofing standards.

Many people who have been at this Dispatch Box and have been at Dispatch Box in the other place are aware that we rarely get to look at standards in the round. The last time this was done with a clear objective was to note was the establishment of the Nolan principles. I view this as a once in a generation opportunity to make sure that we get this right. We have a Minister dedicated to it. I don't know the last time that happened. So this is about how we can make sure we use this moment to fix the things that typically get pushed to one side.

I will, however, agree with my noble friend Baroness Smith, the leader of our house. She was right. We are a full time house with part time members and we are different to the other place, so noble Lords will be aware. I used to be a member of the Other place and I'm married to a member of the Other place. What he is expected to do and what I do, what I do before I was on the front bench are two very, very different sets of responsibilities.

And and we need to make sure that we don't lose. What is so special about this building and about our chamber and about some of the expertise we have because of people's outside interests compared to the other place, the noble Lord also raised the representation of the people's Bill and the impact of money. Also, what noble law didn't touch on the Ryecroft review, which will be coming to and will hopefully and will very much tie into our discussions on these issues.

But let me conclude by reiterating that Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual, and Peter Mandelson's decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable is reprehensible. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They've had to relive it again and again, and they have had to see accountability delayed and too often delight denied. My Lords, Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. The government will comply with the Humble Address and I will provide further updates to your Lordships' House in due course.
15:56
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page