Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Alex Burghart and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is right. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will have heard his remarks, and I hope he will respond to them.

Further to what my right hon. Friend said, the Humble Address was in February, but it was not until March that the Government asked Peter Mandelson for his phone, and Peter Mandelson then refused. As I and other Members said on Monday, the Government should seek to go after Peter Mandelson’s exit payment if he denies co-operation with the Humble Address. It is totally unacceptable that the House should be denied this critical information. We have some information that is retained, some information that appears to have been destroyed and some information that appears to have gone missing.

I wish to turn to some remarks that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made on Monday about his own messages, as he brought them up. I think that will be a useful case study. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:

“I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed…but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 853.]

That is all well and good, but who decided that those messages fell into that category? Did the right hon. Gentleman decide that himself? Did he show them to officials, who then decided? Did he show them to the police? Who made the decision? Again, we must ask these questions of all Ministers who were asked to disclose information. Where is it that people have self-edited? Where is it that people have had auto-deletion on their phones? Where is it that people have refused to hand things over? We deserve to know.

Something that I believe is missing throughout the three volumes we received on Monday is photos, videos, voice notes and, more significantly, attachments. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation for the Government’s approach to those types of document. Let me draw attention in particular to document 33, from 15 September 2025. The email explicitly refers to an attachment, which is pertinent to the subject of the Humble Address, but that document is not available. I could have been led to believe that that document may have been retained by the police, were it not for the fact that all attachments seem to be missing and all photos, voicemails and videos are also missing. I cannot help but feel that it has accidentally fallen out of the full disclosure. May we have some clarity on that?

Let me turn to Peter Mandelson’s declarations of interest, which are one of the most important classes of document; they are perhaps the most important class of document that we are yet to see. We now know that something definitely does exist—first, because the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister told us on Monday, and secondly, because there are references to a back-and-forth about Mandelson’s contacts in the release. Mandelson pushed back on a number of occasions, saying, “I know a lot of foreign people. I have a lot of contacts. I cannot be expected to disclose everything. There was a suggestion from one official not to worry about it too much, just to get on with it and give them a list.”

We appear also to be seeing an absence of documents, such as the mitigations that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, referred to—Collard’s document. If we add it all together—the absence of the declaration of interests, the absence of the mitigations designed perhaps to handle Mandelson’s relationships with his business contacts when in office, the fact that the documents of certain members of the Cabinet are entirely absent, and the business interests that we know Mandelson had—I think we can reasonably hypothesise about what the police are looking at. That would be—this is speculation—an abuse of his position in Washington to support the interests of his business relations. It is very unfortunate that we will not see that information for some time, because it goes to the heart of one of the problems with the appointment of Mandelson in the first place. [Interruption.] I think Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so that I will do. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I can understand why the Government do not want me to ask them any more questions.

In conclusion, there are a number of things that we need of the Government. Most importantly, we need a slightly fresh approach to disclosure where we are told a bit more about what the police have: how many documents in each category, how many WhatsApps and emails of the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, and so on. It is important that the House understands where things have gone missing and can start to put that picture together in its head. I say to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that, once the police investigations are complete, it would be interesting for the police officers involved to come before the Select Committee—it may fall to another Committee as well—to discuss what their approach has been and why, and what lessons might be learned for future disclosures to Parliament.

I end by turning, rather unfortunately, to the last speech that Peter Mandelson ever made in the Lords, where he said:

“I feel very deeply that there will not be anything like the systematic undermining of the Civil Service that we have seen in recent years…when government policy was conducted by private WhatsApp, rather than on properly considered Civil Service advice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 830.]

This scandal has taken the jobs of the ambassador to Washington, of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, of the Cabinet Secretary and of the chief official in the Foreign Office—and, ultimately, it will take the job of the Prime Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred division on the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 153, so the Ayes have it.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Burghart and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The right hon. Member has got his point on the record. Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches, let alone the answers—if only we were. We do not want to continue this debate, but that point is, no doubt, now on the record.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this afternoon’s carry-over motion on the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, over the weekend, the Government briefed journalists that they would bring forward amendments to the Bill in order to give Members reassurance that adequate protection would be given to veterans. However, this morning, no Government amendments appeared on the amendment paper. Is there anything that His Majesty’s Opposition can do to require the Government to publish those amendments in advance of this afternoon’s debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has no power to compel the Government to produce amendments earlier than the tabling deadline set out in the Standing Orders. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s comments. When we consider the carry-over motion later—there is some time for that—he will have a chance to raise the matter with the Secretary of State, who will no doubt be back in the Chamber.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Debate between Alex Burghart and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.

Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.

In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that

“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”

When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Alex Burghart and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to play a part in bringing today’s interesting debate to a close.

I take this opportunity to welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his post—I know he has been in post for a few months, but we have not had the chance to get to know each other. I must say I have been very impressed him. He is a fluent speaker. He is good on detail. That is not sarcasm—I was once warned by Hansard that sarcasm did not come across well in the written record—but I know what it is to be sent out to defend the indefensible. I can see that he is developing a fine skill and that he is some way on his way to mastering it. I just gently say to your man starting out in his Front Bench career in government not to get too good at it, because you will find your party will give you ample opportunities to defend the indefensible in the years ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Shadow Minister, I do not think you are speaking to me when you say “you”. You are obviously speaking to the Minister.

[Alex Burghart]

It has been a long day, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you will forgive me.

But enough of such pleasantries. This is a bad Budget. It is as bad as bad can be. At its heart is a decision to tax businesses hard—very hard—and through them to tax workers until the pips scream. It is a Budget that sees the total effective tax rate on low-earning roles increase to its highest level since 2010, hitting working people hard, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted on Sky television on Friday. We know that taxing business is a bad idea. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said earlier, businesses and working people are the dynamo of the economy. If we denude and degrade them, there is nothing for public services to feed on.

But we discover, as this Budget unravels, that it is not just businesses that are being taxed. It is GPs, it is care homes, it is hospices—as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) pointed out—and it is dentists, charities, childcare, higher education and school support staff. I understand that Labour Members will want to support big tax rises in the Budget, but before they vote on them, I ask them to consider whether they want to vote for tax rises on those services. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is sitting behind me, the Health Secretary said that he would listen to GPs, but either the money from the national insurance contributions is in the Budget, or it is not. Either it is in the envelope, or it is not. Has the thinking been done on this? At present, it would seem that all those services are in limbo. Yesterday, during Education questions, the Education Secretary was asked by both the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), whether school support staff would be affected. She could not answer.

These are serious questions, and the Government must know the answers. His Majesty’s Treasury must have the data, and it must publish that data. So let me first ask the Chief Secretary if he will publish figures showing who will be hit by his national insurance contribution tax rises, what the costs will be to the services concerned, and whether they will receive compensation. As I said, the Treasury must have the data, and if the Chief Secretary does not have it at his fingertips, I ask him to put it in the Library of the House of Commons as soon as possible. We all want better public services; the question is, do we think we can get them if the services that I have mentioned are being taxed? As the Chief Secretary said on television the other day, without reform more generally, money will just follow money out of the door.

We are told that Labour has a plan for improving the NHS. We know that, because the Prime Minister told us in a speech on 11 September that in the spring he would have a plan. That plan, he said, would contain a transition to a digital NHS, moving more care from hospitals to communities, and focusing efforts on prevention over sickness. Who could argue with those sensible measures? It was good to read in the Red Book at a time of the Budget that His Majesty’s Government intend to:

“Invest more than £2 billion in NHS technology and digital to run essential services and drive NHS productivity improvements”,

which

“will deliver 2% productivity next year.”

That is very sensible, but it gives rise to a strange sense of déjà vu—and then one remembers that in the spring Budget this year the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), announced £3.4 billion in additional funding for the NHS to deliver 2% annual increases in productivity through new technology and digital across the health service in England.

So part 1 of Labour’s three-point plan is not new at all. It is a Conservative initiative, already accounted for by a Conservative Chancellor. Let us proceed to part 2, moving more care to communities. On that, the Red Book says absolutely nothing. As for part 3, prevention, there is a small increase in tobacco duty and a vaping products duty. Not content with taxing us into growth, the Chancellor intends to tax us into health—but it is all right, because apparently the Prime Minister has a plan to have a plan in the spring.

I will tell you a funny story about the spring, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was first working as a parliamentary researcher, there was some long-forgotten report that the Department for Children, Schools and Families was producing. We asked when it would be published, and we were told, “In the spring.” We asked, “When does spring end?” The Department told us, “When summer begins.” In that tale is an insight into the way in which Labour Governments think. It is tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, and never does reform come.

That is the plan for the NHS. It is relatively well developed, next to the non-existent plan for welfare reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who is now the shadow Chancellor, started that work, but silence has now descended. More workers are needed to grow the economy—the OBR was quite clear on that. The Chancellor has chosen tax over employment, which will not deliver growth.

The Government’s plan has been to tax, to spend, to think a bit, to set up a website, to get told to serve waffles for every meal, and to think a bit more. Then they will see whether any money is left, they will discover that there is not, and they will need to increase taxes again. What is becoming painfully apparent is that Labour wasted its time in opposition. It had 14 years to come up with a plan for the NHS, but it did not, and now it is scrabbling to find one. By the time we see the Prime Minister’s fabled plan, more than 10% of this Parliament will have passed, and very little will have been done that was not already being done before.

The Prime Minister said there would be no extra money without reform, but that is precisely what he has given the country. That is the price of political complacency. It is the price of thinking that governing is easy. It is the price of believing your own hype, and of failing to be honest with yourselves.

Some people said that the Labour party was trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, and I was one of them. I thought that behind the great ambiguities of the Labour manifesto there would be a game plan, but game plan has come there none. We have £140 billion of extra borrowing, and £10 billion more in higher debt repayments. Mortgage payments are up, and there is austerity for employers and workers. A loveless landslide has become a loveless tax rise for the British people, and they will not wear it.