Lord Mandelson

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to look at the process, but I do not think that it provides any cover for the Prime Minister’s decision. If the story in the New Statesman today is true, the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that

“clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison.”

Candour has been talked about a lot today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should hear from the Minister today whether that report in the New Statesman is true and whether the Prime Minister received that report? That takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship—the extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know.

We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse. Go and be our ambassador to Washington.”

In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.

Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, both the Prime Minister and, as we understand it, his chief of staff decided that it was worth the risk. There was lots of distraction today at Prime Minister’s questions from a Prime Minister who did not want to accept that it was his judgment on the line, including on further police investigations, and on other things that Mandelson had done and things we did not know about. What we all knew, and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the ambassador to the United States of America.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to tell us at the Dispatch Box whether the New Statesman report today is true—that the Prime Minister was directly told that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s flat while he was in prison, and therefore that the extent of that relationship was absolutely clear to the Prime Minister when he made the decision to make that appointment? I know—because I spoke to some of them at the time—that so many Labour Members were uncomfortable but felt obliged to go along with it.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense.

I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow.

From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification:

“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”

Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles.

Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to

“be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files.

Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme.

But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to

“challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment.

I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.

Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.

We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.

The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.

Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.

None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.

When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.

Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.

As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.

I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend may have heard the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier in the day about factionalism in the Labour party. The Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador knowing, as he declared today, what he knew, but he previously brought him in as a strategic adviser, advocate and planner in the 2024 Labour general election campaign. All Labour Members are tainted by that association with Mandelson, which was brought about by the leader of their party, now the Prime Minister, who knew about this matter at the time. That perhaps has not been picked up on as fully as it should have been in today’s debate.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will leave Labour Members to reflect on that because many have spoken up today, but I say once again that they are just words if there is no action.

The judgment of the Prime Minister is deeply, deeply flawed. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. I ran a business. If something was going wrong, the buck stopped with me. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. It is not Morgan McSweeney. He enabled Morgan McSweeney. He needs to be held accountable for his relationship. We need to see the emails and we need to see what the conversations were—that is why this is important—but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I will take one last intervention.

[Graham Stuart]

Further to that last intervention, we need an assurance that we will have urgency. We have seen victims of child abuse in this country let down by a Government who resisted an inquiry but then agreed to it in a big moment. Today could be a moment like that, when the Government appear to give way, but months then pass with nobody appointed to the inquiry. We need to hear from the Minister that the Government will move with speed to ensure that this information comes out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I will give way first to the right hon. Member.

[Graham Stuart]

Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?

[Chris Ward]

Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.