Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Darren Jones

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to the content of my statement, and the very wide-ranging review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission into the process not just for appointments but for vetting, as well as into transparency on lobbying, declarations of interests and business appointment rules. The Government hope that the work of the commission will allow us to have a process that avoids these problems in future.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used

“to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”,

Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said:

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.”

Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?

[Darren Jones]

I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Darren Jones

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.