Lord Mandelson

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who participates a lot more frequently than I do in Opposition day debates. On the basis of the quality of the debate today, I should come along more often.

The immediate background to this issue is the ghastly behaviour of Epstein, the sexual abuse, the child trafficking and all that goes with it. I asked the question the other day as to whether that sexual trafficking might involve not just women and girls but young men. That is unresolved at the moment, but perhaps we will find out more in due course.

I wish to focus my remarks on the period going back to 1997—I know that is long before you were able to recall much about politics, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was when Mandelson was first appointed by Tony Blair as the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the millennium dome. The reason I recall all that is because there was a time when I was the shadow Minister for the millennium dome and also, for that matter, for the millennium bug.

I recall well the way in which Mandelson enjoyed the opportunity to promote the grandiose new Labour scheme of the dome, which was to be the fourth largest enclosed space in the world. In the end, it cost £750 million and the number of visitors who attended the dome in 2000 was half what had been estimated. Mandelson was really proud of this, because it had a link with his grandfather, who must be turning in his grave. Herbert Morrison was a great public servant, and his grandson has betrayed public service in an enormous way.

Herbert Morrison was involved with the Festival of Britain, and Mandelson thought that by being responsible for and promoting the millennium dome, he would in a sense emulate the great efforts of his grandfather. The project proceeded, and it was costing an enormous amount more than had been forecast by the Treasury or expected. Mandelson was in the business of looking for sponsorship for the dome, and he used agents, particularly Keith Vaz, who used to be a Member of this House but left in disgrace, and the Hindujas, to get some extra income for his dome project.

The Hindujas offered £1 million for a faith centre inside the dome, but that did not happen by chance; it was linked to the fact that back in 1990, the Hinduja brothers had applied for British citizenship and been rejected. In 1998, under the New Labour Government, they saw an opportunity to rectify that and get their citizenship. What did they do? They engaged Keith Vaz. Through him, there was a relationship with Mandelson, and the £1 million towards the dome was forthcoming. In return, there was an acceleration of the passport application by Srichand Hinduja. He applied in the middle of ’98, his application was granted in January 1999, and his brothers’ passports arrived not long after that. There was an enormous amount of suspicion around that, and I remember, as shadow Minister for the dome, getting a good story on the front page of The Sunday Times, linking Hinduja with Mandelson and the money for the dome. I went off thinking I would be able to do the usual rounds, but the whole story was closed down by Alastair Campbell and Mandelson, who said it was a whole load of rot and that there was no truth in it whatsoever.

At the time, Mandelson denied that he had any dealings with the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas, but subsequently, there seemed to be evidence that there had been dealings. We should bear this in mind: an inquiry was set up into whether there had been dealings between the Secretary of State and the Hindujas. Sir Anthony Hammond, a distinguished retired civil servant—I think he had been in charge of the Home Office and had been Treasury Solicitor—was asked to produce a report, which he did in 2001. That report totally exculpated Mr Vaz and Mandelson.

A few weeks after that complete exoneration, more papers were discovered, amazingly. The inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond was reopened, which was quite an unusual event. On looking at the extra papers that had been hidden away, he discovered that there had in fact been dealings between Mandelson and Michael O’Brien, a very distinguished and honourable Labour Member who served at the time in the Home Office. Mandelson consistently lied, covered up, and behaved in a way that is totally unacceptable, and that was all that time ago in 2002, when Sir Anthony Hammond’s revised report was produced.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is giving a historical perspective, which I am sure we all appreciate. It seems that Mr Mandelson is a serial liar. Does the hon. Member agree that the Prime Minister said this morning that Mr Mandelson lied, lied and lied to him? Who in this House has never been lied to?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not know how much credibility the hon. Gentleman has given to people whom he knows to be serial liars in his professional life. That is the issue. If the Prime Minister was on an interview panel—in a sense, he was; he was interviewing his close friend for a job—he must have known that he was talking to a serial liar.

[Dr Mullan]

We know that there is one thing that Mandelson did not lie about, because the Prime Minister knew it and said so today: that he continued his contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. There were no lies in that, and the Prime Minister admitted that he knew it. Defend that!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is typically made in court. When the defendant is found to be lying, one addresses the jury and says, “He has lied about that, members of the jury. How can you trust him to tell the truth about the charge that he is facing?” In public office, serial liars should not be tolerated.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Perhaps I can rephrase the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). How was the Prime Minister to know that the famous serial liar Peter Mandelson would lie to him?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.

[Dr Evans]

Can my hon. Friend tell us what we can learn about the documentation, and how the investigation was run back then? As he pointed out, Mandelson was exonerated, yet other papers were found, and suddenly he was guilty. It would be helpful to understand what needs to be done to ensure that we have the right information, as we need to make inferences and decisions about what was going on.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I was going to conclude by saying that I go along with those people who have called for a public inquiry, because it would be able to require the production of the documents. We know from the experience of Sir Anthony Hammond that a non-judicially led public inquiry cannot necessarily get access to all the documents needed. We do not want some whitewash inquiry by the Cabinet Office, and then to find out a couple of years later that it did not have all the documents in front of it. That is the argument in favour of having a public inquiry.

How is it that this Teflon-coated Mandelson has been able to hold high office in the Labour party for all these years? One of the most important speeches today was given by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the Stasi—in this case, the New Labour Stasi. The only explanation for Mandelson continuing to be reinstated after all this bad behaviour is that he was seen as a key party member, and an enforcer of the New Labour Stasi. He was plausible and well connected, and knew how to ingratiate himself with the rich and powerful.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am sorry; I understated the proposition, and my right hon. Friend is quite right to correct me. If we had a public inquiry, we could extend its terms of references to Mandelson’s influence on the internal politics of the Labour party over the last 30 years. Would that not be interesting?

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What you were hearing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was incredulity being expressed by my hon. Friends at the revelation that so discredited a man had such an influence over the choice of candidates, many of whom were successfully elected at the last general election. I do not how those Members will vote this evening. It is extraordinary that Mandelson has had this enduring influence over politics in this country for such a long time, and we needed documents to be produced in the United States to get somewhere near the truth.

[Graham Stuart]

The Government tried to stop the full disclosure of documents today. It was primarily Government Members who identified that and said that they would not put up with it, so it is thanks to them that a manuscript amendment has been tabled. However, there may still be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said that the ISC would vet documents before they were released, but that is not my understanding. The Committee will get to see them, however inappropriate it is for them to be published to the whole House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out the principle that not only should documents be referred to the ISC, but should be released, if the ISC agrees that they are not injurious to our security and should be made public?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. We have to erode this cancer that is affecting our public life and the esteem in which public servants are held. When the public see what has happened over this period in the Mandelson case, they must be horrified.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am a from the 2024 intake, and I am very grateful that I have never had to meet the cretin that is Peter Mandelson. I want to be clear that, party politics aside—or not, actually—I did not join the Labour party because I hold anyone who has led or influenced the party in high esteem. I joined the Labour party for two very important reasons: the welfare state, which is one of the most important things that this country has ever done, and the national health service.

It is dangerous when we hold someone in such high esteem, and when we give so much power to so few people, that things like this are allowed to happen. Let me be very clear: my faith in the Labour party to deliver for the people of this country continues. As for my faith in people like Peter Mandelson, I am very grateful that he is no longer a member of this party.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am certainly not going to make any accusations about her owing anything to Peter Mandelson’s patronage. From what she says, it seems that she is going to join those of us in this House who are independently minded and express our views in a straightforward manner, but it is obvious that a lot of Labour Members who were elected in 2024 were chosen by panels that included Mandelson. This is not exclusively a problem for the Labour party; we must recognise that in our democracy the people who choose the candidates have enormous power, and if those people are corrupt—as has now been established was the case with Mandelson—that places in grave doubt the credibility of our democratic institutions.

[Paul Holmes]

According to reports, it is worse than that: Peter Mandelson had his fingertips throughout the whole of the Labour party, but also the Government. There are reports that after the Prime Minister had realised he had had a continuing relationship with Epstein, Mandelson was in No. 10 during the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 September, so he had a direct role in appointing half the Cabinet, has he not?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

These revelations keep coming, yet answers come there none. I hope that in due course we can pursue these points further with the Prime Minister when he next appears in the House.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

When we talk about the appointment of Mandelson, what we are really talking about is the judgment of the Prime Minister. Mandelson is now a key part of the Starmer Government —appointments, what goes on, the key people—which brings into question every judgment made by this Prime Minister, from Chagos and China to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgment is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour party.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Judgment, discretion and the way that we behave are fundamental; they are part of our character, and we know that character is set quite early in life. Certainly, we can see that Mandelson’s character has not changed in all the time he has been involved in public life and so-called public service.

It is only because of what has been revealed in the United States that we are now in a position to know that Mandelson—he is no longer Lord Mandelson or the right hon. Lord Mandelson—

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should find out—if he does not already know—whether Mandelson was in No. 10 at the time of the last Government reshuffle? Was he involved in the appointment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench? If the Minister can tell us categorically that he was not, that will be a relief to this House.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

And if the Government cannot give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend’s question, that is another reason why we need a public inquiry.

[Dr Mullan]

My hon. Friend mentioned the revelations that are coming out of the emails. The point I made earlier—it is also very important that the Minister responds to this—is that the Government could have asked the US Department of Justice, “Is there anything in the emails relating to Mandelson that has not been released and could affect our decision to appoint him?” Nothing was stopping them from asking the DOJ that question, and it is vital that we know whether they did or not.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is another very good point. I am sure that it has been picked up by Members on the Treasury Bench, and they will respond accordingly. In a sense, we have to thank our mercies that Mandelson has finally been exposed—and not just that exposure outside George Osborne’s house.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

I very much enjoyed the history lesson about a man who has a history of misfeasance in public office. I have spoken in this House about my surprise at his appointment as ambassador to the US, which is an incredibly important relationship for this country. Listening to the debate makes me reflect on the importance of parts of our constitution that give us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those are two incredibly important things, and I think we all owe a great vote of thanks and gratitude to Elon Musk and to X. He has played his part in exposing a great deal of this evil.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. I just draw attention to the fact that “Freedom 250” is how the United States is describing the celebrations for the 250th anniversary of independence. The point he makes about freedom resonates well on both sides of the Atlantic, and we must never forget that. Our representative in the United States during that historic year could have been none other than Mandelson. We must thank everybody who has been involved in trying to bring to light these revelations, which have shamed the Prime Minister. In the end, I think the Prime Minister was shamed into sacking Mandelson, rather than exercising his own judgment.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Actually, I think the appointment has been made. I have met the gentleman concerned, who is an esteemed member of the diplomatic corps. He was present at Mr Speaker’s dinner in honour of the Speaker of the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago. We are in safer, more secure hands.

[Dr Luke Evans]

We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating:

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not going to suggest that we do not vote in support of our own motion. We know from the course of this debate that a lot more questions are being raised. In due course, with the forensic leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, I think we will be able to get to the bottom of these issues and get the answers we deserve. In the meantime, it is frustrating for people.

I will finish with this final note. I did not go to Oxford, but we should show solidarity with the people of Oxford University, who had the wisdom not to elect Mandelson as their chancellor.