Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn. To the question of where the documents are, those in scope of the Humble Address are currently in one of three locations: first, with the Government waiting for the publication of the second tranche; secondly, with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and thirdly, with the Metropolitan police. We have sought to publish all those documents—those that the Government hold and those that the Intelligence and Security Committee are considering—in a combined bundle, in order to aid the House to see the documents in a chronological order. Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work.

I can confirm that documents that relate to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting have been passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee today, and that we intend to publish those as part of the second tranche, subject to discussions with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I was asked specifically about the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been advised by the Metropolitan police that I am unable to list those documents, and so I will not seek to do so. He asked me about redactions policy; obviously the key redactions policy is in relation to information that the Government consider to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. That goes through the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. If there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee, there is a process of redactions hearings between them to resolve that.

As I mentioned in my statement, other redactions relate merely to information such as the names and contact details of junior officials, in line with established freedom of information policy as it relates to the publication of Humble Addresses.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The whole House came together around the Humble Address on the basis that Parliament had found its way forward to deal with the evidence around the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee the House that no documents are being withheld? Around the time that it was reported that the Prime Minister had not been told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting, there were civil servants who were seeking to withhold documents. Can he give an assurance that that is no longer the case?

[Darren Jones]

As has been alluded to at the Dispatch Box, there were documents that the Humble Address warranted to be published as part of that process. The Cabinet Office was very clear about that. It took some time to get access to some of those documents, specifically in relation to UKSV recommendations. That has now concluded and the documents are going through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I set out in my statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work in providing a voice for the pupils who suffered such heinous medical experimentation at Treloar’s. On the issue of the evidence, generally speaking I have always said to IBCA that there needs to be a very sympathetic approach, because we are talking about not only events of a long time ago, but deliberate document destruction. On the specific issue of severe psychological harm under the special category mechanism, I will write to him very precisely about the position.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has handled this issue and for the way he has moved it on in the short time he has been in office. Everyone is very grateful for that. None the less, he knows that there are still widespread concerns among the community about the compensation process. Will he guarantee that those people will continue to be listened to and that their voices will not be dismissed, so we can adapt the process as it goes forward to address some of their concerns? I am grateful to him for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss this directly with the community. I would be grateful if he would do so again before the summer recess, so that people can talk to him directly about their concerns.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I look forward to an invitation from my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group. What he says about the voice of the community going forward is absolutely right. That is why I have created, and announced to the House, a mechanism by which concerns that are expressed are appropriately elevated to where decisions need to be made. I was determined not to have some sort of glorified post box that people sent correspondence into. If concerns are raised, they must be dealt with at the appropriate level, whether that is the Infected Blood Compensation Authority board, or escalated to the Cabinet Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

In response to my question about Jonathan Powell’s security clearance, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:

“I do not have that information to hand.”

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Not a point of order!

[Mr Speaker]

Who was speaking then?

[Clive Efford]

Me.

[Mr Speaker]

Clive, I do not need any help from you. You have been here long enough, like me—leave it to me to do my job, and I will let you do yours.

Security Vetting

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

He was given clearance—those are the facts as I have set them out.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honour when dealing with this House, and he is an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming to the House to mislead Parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a paper trail unravelling such a deception, so it is inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this House. But does he agree with me that all the documents relevant to this matter must be made public in accordance with the Humble Address that was passed on 4 February and that no Ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of the documents from being made public?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I should say that 2029 is a backstop not a target, so it is not a question of my being confident about that date; I want the payments to have been made before 2029. On the hon. Member’s more general point about speeding up payments, IBCA has used a “test and learn” approach for infected people. The reason for that was to have a small number of representative cases, so that there could be an accelerating point at which the number of cases being paid would increase sharply. That did happen and I would say, as the Minister, that we are now up to over £2 billion having been paid, but he is absolutely right to continue to hold me to account on the speed of payments.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff who leads the inquiry and the people who gave evidence to it, which made his report so powerful, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with this process in the short time he was been in office. It has moved things on immeasurably from where we were before, albeit building on the work that was done before.

My right hon. Friend knows how complex this issue is, so the devil will be in the detail of the statement, but I welcome the news that the requirements for evidence will be reduced where people have already produced evidence and gone through previous thresholds, and are then required to provide it again when it is not available. Mistrust inevitably exists for people who have had to campaign for so long for justice from the state, so I welcome the fact that he is creating a new mechanism to listen to the community continuously as the process goes on. Does he agree that taking that way forward will help to avoid the disagreements we have had in the past?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I was pleased to attend and speak to in recent weeks. He is absolutely right about the new feedback mechanism. It is so important not only that victims feel that their voice can be heard, but that they have a specific process whereby they can raise those concerns and then be elevated to the appropriate person to respond to them. That will be hugely important going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.

Middle East

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.

Lord Mandelson

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times.

Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment.

The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?

[Mr Speaker]

A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.

China and Japan

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?

[Darren Jones]

The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This legislation is long overdue. Looking back at the scandals where the state has deceived the people, some of which go back to the aftermath of the second world war, we see a long list of how the great British state has let down the people it is there to serve. In all these scandals involving the state versus the people, it is ordinary people who had to fight long and hard to get justice. In the contaminated blood scandal, it has taken over 50 years. For nuclear test veterans, it goes back to the 1950s. In the case of Hillsborough, it took 36 years. The list goes on. All these scandals demonstrate that there is something wrong at the heart of our state—that the state places itself above the people, will not allow itself to be seen to be wrong and, worse, refuses to offer redress for its wrongdoing.

I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—addressing one of the worst examples the state deceiving people over many decades. At the start of his May 2024 report, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, sets out the depth of the state’s deception—how the state knew as early as the mid-1940s the dangers posed by transfusions of plasma, and the consequences. The risk of spreading infections through transfusions was known in the early days of the NHS, yet this did not result in research or any attempts to ensure that blood was being sourced from safe providers. The state doubled down on its denial while continuing to use products that put people at greater risk. Sir Brian goes on to accuse the state of a catalogue of failings, deliberate lies and obfuscation. He exposes the scale of the deception and how the state failed to carry out research to make products safer, which could have saved lives and reduced infections. This in turn led to products not being HIV-free.

At Treloar’s school, pupils with haemophilia were given contaminated blood products as part of an experiment. That is probably the most chilling part of the whole scandal. The former pupils of Treloar’s have called themselves “human guinea pigs”; those are their own words. What is worse is that the pupils were told that they had glandular fever. Their families were told not to tell anyone that it was HIV. The lack of a duty to tell the truth allowed the state to ignore the needs of the victims and their families. They were offered no help, support or counselling. The silence allowed the state to avoid being held to account—something that we have seen again and again in the Hillsborough story, the Post Office Horizon story and all the rest. This has to stop, and the Bill will at last give a voice to victims.

Although candour in public officials is welcome, the Bill fails to impose a similar duty on our media. Time and again, we have seen a significant section of our national media collaborate with officials, which has obstructed justice, misled the public and led to harassment of survivors and their families. Perhaps the most devastating example is the role of The Sun in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy; the paper directly conspired with South Yorkshire police to accuse fans of causing the disaster. I hope that as the Bill passes through all its stages, we can address this omission.

I welcome the Bill. We MPs come here to speak truth to power on behalf of our constituents. Now our constituents will have the right to force power to speak truth to them.