Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Chris Vince

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

This Humble Address has been worked on by Ministers and civil servants very diligently, independently and scrupulously, but that has led to some huge costs, which I am going to outline. Maybe that is a lesson that should be learned for future Humble Addresses. As the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said earlier in the week, £1 million has been spent by the Cabinet Office alone. A further £1 million has been spent by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and there have been further costs, including the cost of the independent King’s Counsel; the 16 to 20 civil servants entirely dedicated to this role; the time that the Intelligence and Security Committee has spent on this matter; and the many other civil servants from all the Departments involved in this. Those are huge costs.

My constituents in Putney want Government money to be spent on making their lives better, so we should always question whether this inquiry is making their lives better. When we use parliamentary powers, we have a duty to use public money responsibly and proportionately. I want full transparency, but full transparency must be smart, targeted and proportionate. A Humble Address should be a power of last resort, not a blunt instrument. Because this one was drafted on the hoof and without limits, it is taking up huge resource and time, and in doing so risks making future scrutiny harder, not easier. Most Humble Addresses ask for papers relating to a specific decision; this one asked for

“all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to”

nine wide-ranging categories spanning from pre-appointment to post-departure, plus all electronic comms and minutes. The breadth of that request is why the Government said:

“Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 41.]

It will obviously take even more time because of the police investigation. Meanwhile, the cost is now £2 million and rising.

I reiterate the need to be able to use Humble Addresses as an Opposition tool. Maybe one day, Labour will be in opposition, and we will want to be able to use it. I absolutely agree with that, but I think that some guardrails should be put in place. I ask the Procedure Committee, alongside the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to review how Humble Addresses are used.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and well-thought-out speech. She has talked about guardrails, and my constituents in Harlow will feel the same as hers about the time this process is taking and the amount of Government resources that are being used. It is really important that we get transparency, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of those guardrails should be to protect minor officials? That is what the redactions—which, of course, there has been some discussion about—are seeking to do. What should happen in this process is that those who are guilty should be punished, but those who are innocent should not be.

[Fleur Anderson]

My hon. Friend raises another good point. The rules around redactions were mentioned earlier, and we should ensure that they are consistent between inquiries. We can learn many things from this, and we should build in those things for the future.

I will make three points—only three. First, we need scope and limits. Motions should set out the subject, the time period and the type of documents sought much more rigorously than this Humble Address did. Secondly, we need a proportionality check. When we voted on this Humble Address, we were not given financial information. Before the House votes, we should have an estimate from the Government of the likely cost, staff time involved and how long compliance will take. That should be part of our measured judgment. We can weigh that against the public interest and use that information when voting. Thirdly, we should use the right tool for the job. There are Select Committees, as we well know—the Foreign Affairs Committee has been rigorously looking at this issue—as well as written questions, freedom of information requests, police investigations, as there are in this case, and evidence under oath. There are other routes to transparency, too. I am not saying we should have used those things in this case—this is the right one for this matter—but we should be prepared to check with future Humble Addresses whether those other routes should not be used.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Chris Vince

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for finding time for this important Adjournment debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister for being in her place to hear it. I look forward to her response. I know that many Members feel passionate about this issue and look forward to taking as many interventions as I can.

There have been plenty of high-profile examples of sudden cardiac arrest in young people, but I want to speak about a case brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Maureen, who was the aunt of Clarissa Nicholls. Clarissa was studying French and Italian at the University of Cambridge. She was a keen runner and hockey player. Just days before her 21st birthday in May 2023, she collapsed and died while hiking in France with friends. It was later found that she had an undiagnosed life-threatening condition: arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. In June 2024, Clarissa was posthumously awarded a first-class honours degree from the University of Cambridge.

I have had the honour of meeting Clarissa’s mum Hilary, both privately and at a recent event in Westminster held by the Cardiac Risk in the Young campaign. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for organising that event. Hilary said:

“Despite a journey cut tragically short we want to celebrate her achievements alongside her cohort, as it should have been. We know that we would have been very proud of her today and we remain proud of her dedication, determination and resilience as she set out to be the very best she could be.”

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have also met Hilary, Clarissa’s mum, and heard about her death and the fact that a simple electrocardiogram test can save lives. It is chilling to think that my daughters could face this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that exercise can triple the risk of sudden cardiac death, but 80% of cases show no symptoms at all? The Government could act now to issue clear guidance, as we have done on concussion, and encourage and enable more young people to have the simple test that could save so many lives.

[Chris Vince]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. Clarissa was a young girl who was very involved in sport. There is no reason why young people with these conditions cannot continue to take part in sport, as long as they are aware of their condition and able to take the necessary precautions.

Hilary said that her daughter

“put everything into her studies, the friends she made here and the staff that supported her along the way including while she was on her year abroad. We are grateful for the happy times she clearly took away with her to the next life.”

When I applied for and secured this Adjournment debate, what really struck me was the number of people who came up to me and shared their personal experiences. In fact, only this morning, two Doorkeepers shared their experiences of this condition. I pay tribute to one of those Doorkeepers, Kieron, whose son Connor—who was born on 13 January 1994—died in 1995 at only 14 months old. When the post-mortem was conducted, it was found that he died of sudden cardiac death through a thickening of a heart muscle. That was over 30 years ago, but I know from talking to Kieron the huge impact it has had on his life; he will always carry that loss with him. It is important that we recognise how long we have been aware of these issues, and that it is time to talk about what action we can take.

This morning, I was in my constituency of Harlow, talking to one of our headteachers, Vic Goddard, who is the head of the Passmores co-operative learning community. He spoke about a young boy dying of cardiac arrest during his time as a PE teacher, and feeling so strongly that every school he works in should have a defibrillator. Again, having spoken to some of the staff in this place, I want to emphasise the huge difference that access to a defib can make to survival chances.