Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I have just a few short remarks. First, it would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government have come to the totals that they have come to: why one, four and nine in total? Why not fewer, and why not more? Secondly, I did not quite get the Dispatch Box commitment I was looking for that this would mark an end to unpaid ministerial posts in this Government. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of a debate on the Government Front Bench about whether that commitment was made, but if the Paymaster General would be crystal clear, we can all go home happy.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I will speak only briefly, because the Opposition do not intend to oppose the legislation. My contribution is already substantially longer than that made by my predecessor, Teddy Taylor, in 1975, when the legislation originally came to the House, who said only 14 words before sitting down.

Although the Conservatives do not oppose the measure, I have a few questions based on issues raised by my hon. Friends. The next Conservative Government intend to reduce the size of Government and, in due course, reduce the number of Ministers that the Government require. On principle, we think that Ministers ought to be paid. However, referring back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), the former Deputy Prime Minister, it would be good to have a Dispatch Box commitment that there will be no more unpaid Ministers under this Government. I understand that the Bill has not been drafted in that way and that the Government intend to bring forward amendments only in Committee, but such a commitment would reassure the House that this is not just going to be an ever-increasing problem, and that unpaid Ministers will be added to paid Ministers, and so on.

It would be helpful if the Minister set out for the House the Government’s intention for the additional Secretary of State salary. That will command some interest, both inside and outside this place. It is pretty obvious that the Government have something in mind and it would be useful to air that at this stage.

As I have said, we believe that those who serve as Ministers ought to be paid. It is not really right that Prime Ministers should ask people to be a Minister of the Crown without offering them a salary, and I think our constituents would feel the same way. While our approach would be slightly different, we will not oppose the legislation today.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.

The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,

“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.

It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.

As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.

As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.

We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.

The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.

As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Alex Burghart]

Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.

Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:

“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]

But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.

There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.

To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would

“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.

That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.

I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?

[Darren Jones]

As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.

The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.

There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.

This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:

“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”

The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.

Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.

[Darren Jones]

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.

On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, 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. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that particular contract, and since he last asked the Government that question we have done some research. The original contract was awarded by a Mr A. Burghart, under the previous Administration, with a direct ministerial award for the contract that was then renewed at the subsequent awarding that he refers to. He asked me for the disclosure of information, and that will of course be done under the Humble Address.

[Alex Burghart]

I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a person—[Interruption.] I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a man who was advising that company. This is something entirely different, as the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows full well. There was an undisclosed meeting between the Prime Minister and that company in February last year. That should not have happened. This looks, to all intents and purposes, like a conflict of interests. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree to publish that information? He says it is within the scope of the Humble Address, but the Humble Address was about the appointment of Lord Mandelson. This is not about the appointment of Lord Mandelson; this is about a meeting that the Prime Minister and Mandelson had in February 2025. Will the Minister please publish the details of that meeting, and ensure that the new Cabinet Secretary looks into what happened at that meeting, and everything between that meeting and the direct award?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address deals with the matters in question, but I remind the hon. Member that he is asking about the extension of a contract that was awarded under the previous Government. To suggest that it was a new contract that had been in any way related to the meeting is incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government

“are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.]

That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The arguments about FIRS are well rehearsed, but I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members said that we would not introduce FIRS. Then they said that we would introduce it later than we had said we would. We introduced FIRS on time, but it is still a relatively new capability. I think that it offers considerable potential, in terms of what it will deliver for our country, but we are looking very closely at how we can ensure its maximum operational capability. I think that is pretty clear in any language.

[Alex Burghart]

Well, it is not very clear, because FIRS is three years old. This morning, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who established FIRS. When he was establishing it, MI5 told him that it was essential for understanding the operation of the Chinese state in the UK. The enhanced tier would impose mandatory registration and transparency requirements on individuals and organisations in the UK working with Chinese entities. I think most people in this House would now agree that that is entirely necessary. It is there to help our security services protect our country. Please will the Security Minister give us a date by which he will come back to this House to tell us definitively whether he will put China on the enhanced tier, and to set out his explanation?

[Dan Jarvis]

On a simple point of fact, FIRS is not three years old. When we came into government, FIRS was not a properly developed system. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may groan, but it is a statement of truth that FIRS was not ready to go. This Government got a grip and introduced that tool. It came into force, in effect, on 1 October last year. We have already placed two countries on the enhanced tier. We take these decisions very carefully, but I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will come back, when there is a requirement to do so, and update the House on any further decisions that we seek to make on FIRS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am happy to look into the individual case, but I repeat that the Government reserve their right under both of these contracts, whether it is the existing Capita contract or MyCSP’s previous responsibilities, to take these matters up.

[Alex Burghart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?

[Mr Speaker]

I think you already know. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As we all know, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I know that he has already tabled a written parliamentary question on this matter. I expect Ministers to give a full and frank answer. If he requires further advice on the options available to him, I am happy to pursue this matter with the Clerks and the Table Office, and I am always happy to meet him to see how we can move things forward. I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be honest and open. The only other thing I would expect is for it to be an early answer, and for it not to get lost in the system.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I appreciate the speed with which he has come to the House today.

Here we are again: another year, another Chinese spy scandal, and the backdrop is the Government’s failed policy of appeasement. The Government must surely be coming to the realisation that unless the United Kingdom stands up to these threats, our country will continue to be treated with disdain. We watched how the Government allowed the Chinese spy case involving Members of this House to collapse. We watched as—despite the interference in our democracy—the Government approved the Chinese mega-embassy in London, and we watched as the Prime Minister went to Beijing, cap in hand, begging for trade deals to mitigate the costs of his own disastrous economic policy. We in the House watched as those things happened; the Chinese state watched, too, and saw that it could act with impunity. The Minister said that there is no trade-off between our economic interests and our democratic and national security interests, but I am afraid that is exactly what has happened.

I understand that the Minister will be unable to say much about the new case, but we all know what we are dealing with here, so I hope he will be clear about the Government’s response. I hope that he will talk a little bit about whether this case touches on Members of the House, because while we have been in the Chamber the BBC and The Guardian have reported that one of those arrested is the spouse of a sitting Labour MP and that another is the spouse of a former Labour MP. Given that that is being reported in the press, will the Minister confirm whether that is true?

Will the Minister also give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent this case from collapsing? We have seen this show before. Will he promise that, unlike last time, the Chinese ambassador will be summoned by Ministers and told that aggressive interference in our country and its democracy will no longer be tolerated? Mr Speaker, I should say how right you were to deny that ambassador access to this House.

Will the Minister now commit to placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The Minister said that China presents a series of threats, but during the last spy scandal the Government refused to say the crucial words—that China posed a risk to our national security—and they would not publicly accept that China was opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom. Will he now accept that that position is no longer tenable?

The Minister said that if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, the Government will impose severe consequences and hold all actors involved to account. We sincerely hope that is true, but it was not true last time, so here we are again. Unless the Government finally step up, we will be back here time and again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the speed at which the Government have sought to make a statement. I know that he and right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there are strict limitations on what I can say about what is obviously now a live police investigation, but I hope that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that these are the most serious matters, which require us as a House to put the protection of our democracy above any political point scoring. That is how we should approach these proceedings.

The hon. Member, for reasons that I understand, sought to critique the Government’s position. I understand why he did that, but I am confident in the Government’s response to this incident and to our wider agenda on countering political interference. Of course, it is right that Members across the House have the opportunity to scrutinise Government policy and ask questions. That is precisely why we have moved at pace to provide an opportunity for them to do so.

I want to give the hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Members a guarantee that, given the sensitivity of these issues and the obvious need to protect the operational activity of our police and the security services, we will look for other opportunities to provide appropriate briefings to relevant Members across the House by the relevant experts, to ensure that they can be updated in a way that simply cannot be done on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member asked a number of questions. He will understand that there are strict limits on what I can say, but let me assure him about the seriousness with which we take these matters. I have always believed that the work that takes place across the House, led by Government, to defend our democracy should be a shared endeavour. The defending democracy taskforce was an initiative brought forward by the previous Government, and this Government have invested in it. It is the fulcrum at which we co-ordinate activity across Government and with law enforcement partners, working closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary security authorities here in the House, to ensure that our elected representatives are properly protected against the threats that we face. I assure him of the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected.

The hon. Member knows, because we have had such exchanges on numerous occasions, that matters relating to prosecutions are specifically matters for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not for Ministers to opine and make judgments from the Dispatch Box, because the CPS is rightly independent of Government. But he does know—as do other hon. Members—how extremely disappointed the Government were that the trial last autumn did not proceed. Clearly, as he will understand, there is a crucial difference in that the charges in that case had been brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am confident that the National Security Act 2023 provides the robust legislation we need to address the threats that we undoubtedly face.

The hon. Member mentioned FIRS, and I understand why he decided to do so. FIRS is an important capability that comes from the National Security Act. It is still a relatively new tool, and we are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under very close review. As I have made clear, this Government will simply not tolerate attempts to interfere in our democracy. We have already taken tough action to strengthen our defences against foreign interference, and we will not hesitate to take further steps where they are necessary.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the Government are committed to upholding and protecting that freedom. Journalists must be able to do their job without fear or favour, including holding politicians of all political parties to account on behalf of the public that we all serve.

In the past week, there have been a number of media reports about the actions of the think-tank Labour Together in 2023 and 2024. Some of those media reports have included allegations about the conduct of the joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who was previously the director of Labour Together.

As the Prime Minister confirmed last week, he asked civil servants in the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team to establish the facts. As Members across the House will know, all civil servants are bound by the civil service code, which dictates that they act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The exercise to establish the facts around the allegations was bound by those principles.

That work has now concluded and the facts have been reported to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been advised that the matter should now be referred to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and the Prime Minister has done so today. This is not a new process, but a continuation of the process that the Prime Minister has started. The Prime Minister will make a judgment when he has received the advice from the independent adviser. That will happen very soon, and the independent adviser’s advice to the Prime Minister will be made public in the normal way.

The independent adviser is appointed to provide impartial, independent advice to the Prime Minister, in line with his published terms of reference. The current independent adviser was appointed under the last Administration by the Prime Minister’s predecessor and is independent of the Government. He will provide his independent advice directly to the Prime Minister.

I reiterate that a free and independent press is an absolutely essential part of a free, open and democratic society and is one of the things that makes our country great. Representing the public as a Minister is a privilege and a duty, and public scrutiny is rightly part of that. The Government are committed to protecting freedom of the press, and no journalist should ever be intimidated for trying to hold those in power to account.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this Government. While he was the director of the think-tank Labour Together, the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), paid a PR agency to investigate the “backgrounds and motivations” of British journalists who had written about Labour Together’s breaches of electoral law, of which there were many—more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000-worth of donations. The agency produced a report that included an allegation that the journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious.

The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief, but in the past few days an email from the agency to the Minister has been published, showing that he was shown that a “human intelligence investigation” into the journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist’s Jewish faith and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships. The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said that there was no case to answer.

This looks to all intents and purposes like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only “crime” had been to report that Labour Together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the Minister’s position is tenable.

The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately. This should not have been dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is the Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing—you couldn’t make this stuff up! I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Minister has not been suspended while the investigation is going on.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister refers to the work of the propriety and ethics team. We must also ask about the current membership of that team, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now accept that that appointment was wrong?

It must also be the case that very many people took money from Labour Together: the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister—the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour party—is it not time for an investigation into Labour Together?

[Darren Jones]

I will take those questions in reverse order. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accused me of taking money from Labour Together. That is not true. I had a number of staff seconded to my office when I was a member of the shadow Cabinet. As I am sure Opposition Members know, that is an important contribution that is made to political parties, as the Opposition do not have access to the civil service, but no money was taken—not one pound, not one penny—and seconded staff were reported in the proper way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will revoke those comments when he gets the opportunity.

The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the investigation led by the propriety and ethics team. I can confirm that that was led by a senior member of staff—not the member of staff to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who reported directly to the Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman’s first question was about why the Minister in question has not been suspended while the investigation is taking place. That is because the independent adviser on ethics can investigate Ministers only while they are in office. If the Minister had been suspended or removed from office, the independent adviser would not be able to undertake his work, and the Prime Minister thinks it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to do just that.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.

My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.

In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.

In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.

The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the

“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”

That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.

In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.

[Mr Speaker]

Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.

I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.

[Mr Speaker]

But I am sure you will have a go. [Laughter.]

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.

Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?

I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?

Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?

Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?

Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.

Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?

Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through. The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—

[Alex Burghart]

Special advisers in your Department are.

[Chris Ward]

Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.

Lord Mandelson

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time for this Opposition day debate on presenting an Humble Address.

I think the whole House has been shocked and disturbed by the revelations that have emerged once again over the past few days. Peter Mandelson, it seems, helped Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to make money. That money was used to run Mr Epstein’s paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped to make him rich and powerful, and they share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused. No doubt for some of those involved, this was just a heady game of who had the best contacts and who could make the most money, played by a small set of men who took their thrill from existing outside the rules. It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels, and the more shameful the whole episode appears.

Generally, three main things must concern this House. The first is the now-emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson when he was a member of the previous Labour Administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it is good to see that the Government are co-operating fully with that investigation. I am sure that, when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for us to discuss the matter in this House.

The second issue, of similar import, is the judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

This is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend is dealing with it appropriately. He will have heard, as I did, the Prime Minister refer to the fact that the “extent of the relationship” between Mandelson and Epstein was “not known”. The common view among Members across the parties at the time was that any relationship should have precluded Peter Mandelson from the appointment to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return.

I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing forward this matter for consideration. What we are listening to and what is happening is absolutely incredible. May I suggest that the five years during which Mandelson was EU trade commissioner should be part of the investigation as well? A full investigation should include every t that was crossed and every i that was dotted by Peter Mandelson. That is what this House and this nation want.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The more we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. All Peter Mandelson’s dealings, as a politician and as a businessman, should now be laid out for the House and the country to consider.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with.

What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team. We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider.

Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of

“potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”,

the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns. We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?

[Alex Burghart]

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I must make some progress.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?

[Alex Burghart]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.

It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?

The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,

“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about

“national security or international relations”?

My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is right. The Government’s judgment and their behaviour are under investigation here. It cannot be the case that the Government can then decide what is disclosed. Fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the Government, working with them to decide what information could and could not be released.

Built into the Humble Address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need—

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.

[Claire Hanna]

The House is getting a lesson that many families in Northern Ireland, such as those of Sean Brown and the victims of Stakeknife, have learned over decades that national security is routinely deployed to cover the blushes of the UK Government. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is now arriving at that point. Would he support a wider review of his party and the Government’s application of “national security” to all sorts of disclosure cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters, through Humble Addresses and otherwise. Previous Humble Addresses, when the Labour party was in opposition, would sometimes name a Select Committee. I was on the receiving end of that as the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I genuinely want to ask the hon. Gentleman this: why did the Opposition not put in the Humble Address that this matter should go to a Select Committee? I think that there are still ways to use the Committee corridor to scrutinise anything that may be more sensitive than that which can go into the public domain.

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.

In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.

Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.

Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?

The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Paymaster General to move the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?

[Chris Ward]

As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.

So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the

“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”

That investigation never happened.

In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.

Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that

“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?

On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.

So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.

The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?

It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.

[Darren Jones]

The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.

On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.