Ambassador to the United States

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I am going to be very gentle. Let me just say that we are talking about a very serious issue, in which the national interest is engaged, and about somebody who in my view has used his public position to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of the state. That is not true of some candidate working in a junior role for the company, but it is true of the man who created that company and used it to promote his own interests.

To come back to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, from my point of view—and this is personal rather than political—even more worrying were the attitudes struck by Mandelson in February 2021 when, during a lobbying meeting on behalf of his rich clients, he told Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that the critics of Beijing’s human rights record would be “proved wrong”. That astonishing statement was followed later in 2021 by Mandelson being the only Labour peer to vote—against a three-line Whip—against a genocide amendment that would have meant this country had to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the High Court to be committing genocide, and most specifically China was in the crosshairs. Frankly, it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. In case the House thinks it is a Conservative organisation, can I explain that it has Members of Parliament from all parties in this House, that 53 countries are involved and that it has co-chairs from both the left and the right? It is wholly above party politics, but is all about the threat from China.

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.

We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.

[Mrs Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility.

Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us.

It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility.

This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters.

So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.

National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.

Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The point keeps being raised about the three-week gap that is coming, but the reality is that key Select Committees can continue to investigate this issue through the recess, which they should, and could call the Prime Minister to give evidence, so that we do not wait three weeks, with the Government hoping that it dies. That is the key.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on.

The Prime Minister said he would do things differently. If he wants to show leadership, he could come to the Dispatch Box himself. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister who will have to defend this situation, but he is not the decision maker—he is not the risk holder when it comes to this decision. Therein lies the point. I am sad today, because the public will look on and see that a new Prime Minister came in on a landslide majority saying he would do things differently, by his own standards that he set, and he has chosen not to. He has ignored the questions. He has answered the media, saying in his one outing, “I wouldn’t have made the decision if I knew the information.” That is not good enough to allow the public to understand.

I finish where I started: today is a pyrrhic victory—a hollow victory—but I live in hope. On the day that the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I am hopeful that the Prime Minister could still lead the change that he set out. He could still live by his own standards that he set for himself and his Government, and he could still clear up once and for all exactly what happened. I live in hope that that might be the case.