Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Debate between Chris Ward and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.

The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.

[Chris Ward]

To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.

Lord Mandelson

Debate between Chris Ward and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.

[Chris Ward]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Ward and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.

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

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Debate between Chris Ward and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

Having now had the opportunity to read these statements, Members will have been able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say—[Interruption.] No, you are going to hear it, whether you like it or not. Mr Tugendhat, I expect better from you. You will be wanting to catch my eye, and this is not the best way to do it. Can we please show a little bit more respect, which I normally get from you?

[Chris Ward]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.

The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are

“highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the…security of the UK.”

It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the shadow Minister for that and, as I say, I do recognise how personally important this matter is to him and to many Members of the House.

On transparency, the Security Minister has given two statements to this House. The Prime Minister gave what I think we can all agree was a rather lengthy statement yesterday, and he used the pretty unusual process of publishing the evidence in full yesterday, so transparency is something the Government are trying to provide.

The key point the shadow Minister made was about why the Prime Minister or Ministers did not interfere or try to do so. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, this was a matter for the CPS independently, and an important principle of this Government—[Interruption.] Evidence was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister made it clear, and this is the bit I find confusing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Cartlidge, you are very energetic there and even I can hear you from here, so please can we have a little bit less?

[Chris Ward]

This is the bit that I find slightly confusing about the Opposition’s approach. On Monday and today as well, they have accused this Government of political interference, including by the National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that is completely untrue. On the other hand, they are saying there should have been political interference, and that the Prime Minister should have directed or tried to help the CPS. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is not the case, and that no Prime Minister and no Government would interfere with the CPS on a decision to charge, which is entirely for it to make.

In terms of the evidence in the three statements put forward yesterday, there is clear consistency across them. They all set out the very, very serious threats that China poses. I do not think anyone can think that that is not the case. [Interruption.] It was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words. It is his choice what happens, and that is what happened.

We have been through this several times—on Monday, yesterday and today. The Prime Minister has provided the evidence. It is there for Ministers and Members to see. Ultimately, the decision was taken by the CPS not to proceed and we are all disappointed in that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It seems to me that the issue is this: given that all the deputy NSA’s witness statements refer to China as a threat, I cannot understand why the CPS took the nuclear option of collapsing the case rather than leaving it to a jury. Twenty years as a criminal barrister has given me absolute faith that the jury would have spent no time on how many angels can dance on the top of a pin, but would simply have looked at whether or not China was an enemy. They would have found it very easy to decide that that is exactly what it was and then moved on to whether or not these men had been spying on behalf of China. It does seem to me that the decision should have been left to a jury. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why on earth the CPS dropped the case?

[Chris Ward]

As I say, this was a decision taken by the CPS independently, with no interference or involvement from the Government. Members may or may not sympathise with that decision. It was a CPS decision. That is why it is important that the evidence is in the public domain now and that everyone can judge from that how things proceeded.

I will just make one final point. Obviously, the CPS decision was not based purely on the evidence put forward by the DNSA. It was based on much wider evidence collected over a much longer period, so the decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS on a much broader evidential basis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Yesterday, we saw finger pointing and “gotcha” moments from both the Government and the Opposition Benches during Prime Minister’s questions, but the release of the witness statements last night provides further questions for both sides, including what pressure was being applied to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from within their own party to dampen down their criticisms of China. This whole thing makes an absolutely mockery of what is a serious collapse of a case and a threat to our national security—a threat that is not going away but will only increase.

Did the CPS tell the Government in advance that the case was at risk of collapsing? Did it ask the Government to be more explicit in their wording, and if so, why were the Government not more explicit? Will the Minister commit today to a statutory independent inquiry, which would provide radical transparency and ensure that the right lessons are learned so that this does not happen again?

[Chris Ward]

I can promise that I will try to avoid all “gotcha” moments and finger pointing. On the question of when the CPS informed the Government, my understanding, and the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday, is that the Prime Minister was informed very shortly before the case collapsed—a matter of days before. That is on the record—it was in the House, if you need to refer to that, from the Prime Minister.

In terms of future inquiries, I should have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is an issue Select Committees will want to look at as well. There is a normal process for that, but I am unable to go beyond that today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

As I say, parliamentary scrutiny and transparency is something that, despite the allegation, we are trying to provide with statements and by publishing evidence. I am sure, going forward, that that is something that will carry on. I will come back to my hon. Friend on the precise mechanism for how we will do that, but I am sure people will be made available to his Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, this is too important for party politics; it is a matter of national security against an existential threat from China. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he said that no Minister would ever apply pressure to the CPS, and I completely believe him. But we would like to have clarity that Ministers had no discussions with civil servants and then subsequently civil servants with the CPS. We want to be absolutely clear that there was no ministerial involvement at all.