Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Matt Western

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States.

There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid.

Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matt Western]

In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker.

When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things.

I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend. I was simply addressing the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that the operation at No. 10 was the worst in living memory. It is quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We have had two very recent examples, in 2019-22 and then 2022-23, under Johnson and Truss.

I want to make it quite clear that the way I see it, the mistake that may have been made by No. 10 is the clear delegation to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, who was at the heart of an inner circle in No. 10 that no longer exists of Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle. As has come to light just this morning, Matthew Doyle was also part of the problem.

Subsea Telecommunications Cables: Resilience and Crisis Preparedness

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Matt Western

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for serving on the Committee and for the work he is doing in chairing the Defence Committee, and he is absolutely right. There are several elements to this. One is, as we have seen in the Baltic and around our shores, the nature of the threats. The attacks on cables are proving provocative, and we have to demonstrate a more muscular approach to how we view them. It is interesting to see that some of our peers in NATO have taken this a bit further, and we should look closely at that, but we are constrained by international law.

I have mentioned the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885, which is not fit for purpose. There needs to be some thinking along the lines of what we can do within our territorial waters to address any threat that is presented, such as we saw last year with the Yantar and other ships. Work needs to be done on the legal side, but also on the hardware that we can deploy. As an island nation, this should be something on which we can develop a huge sovereign capability, which would also boost our exports.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the quality of this report? I have a family interest in undersea cables: it was my great-great-grandfather, Professor Fleeming Jenkin, who laid the first transatlantic telephone cable in 1858. On the question of deterrence, can we realistically deter this kind of behaviour by our adversaries if we continue to allow our hands to be tied by an overstrict interpretation of international law? The vandalism committed on undersea cables has very serious economic consequences, and maybe even national security consequences. It is being committed by ships that are themselves in breach of international law. Should we not just deal with them, particularly if they open fire on our military aircraft, as happened recently with lasers from a Russian ship?