Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reminded the House on Monday that he had given 10 updates on the Mandelson affair to Parliament, and, as the Paymaster General reminded us earlier, it will be 11 today. There are more than 1,500 pages of documents in this release alone—the largest Government response to a Humble Address in parliamentary history—but there is still one account that we have not received.
In April, I said in this Chamber that when the Prime Minister simply says that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson to the UK’s most important diplomatic posting—that it was, in his words, an “error of judgment”—he gives a description of an outcome, not an account of his judgment. I used the analogy of a driver saying, “I should not have crashed the car”, without ever accounting for the actions that led to the crash. That matters if we are to understand properly what went wrong, it matters to preventing it from happening again, and it matters to judging whether the driver should still be behind the wheel.
If the House will indulge me, I will extend that analogy. These 1,500 pages give us the crash scene in more detail than Parliament has ever received on any comparable matter. We have the vehicle’s full mechanical history, we have the account of every passenger, we have what the bystanders observed from the pavement, and we have what the recovery team found when they arrived—but what we still do not have, after all that, is the driver’s account. What did the Prime Minister weigh in making his decision, what did he conclude, and where does he now think he went wrong in his reasoning?
The Prime Minister received the due diligence in December 2024, which documented Mandelson’s association with Epstein and that he had stayed in Epstein’s home while Epstein was serving a prison sentence for sexual offences against a minor. The document described that as a “reputational risk”—not a moral question about what it means to appoint someone who maintained such a friendship, not a question about what message it sends to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s crimes, just a reputational risk to be managed. Did the Prime Minister consider any of those questions? We do not know. All we know is that he proceeded anyway.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said on Monday, in these 1,500 pages, Epstein’s victims are not mentioned once in any document dated before Mandelson’s appointment. The only reference to them seems to be in an email written after he was sacked. The victims were not just an afterthought; they were given no thought at all.
The published documents also highlight failures once Mandelson was in post. The due diligence was explicit: Global Counsel interests would have to cease on appointment. During Mandelson’s seven months as ambassador, from February to September 2025, he retained a substantial shareholding in Global Counsel. In February 2025, weeks into his ambassadorial role with that shareholding intact, he accompanied the Prime Minister on a visit to Palantir’s Washington headquarters. No formal minutes of that meeting were taken. In July 2025, he wrote to No. 10 suggesting that the Prime Minister should meet Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel while in London.
Palantir was a Global Counsel client. How was an ambassador who retained a commercial stake in a lobbying firm permitted to accompany the Prime Minister to a meeting with one of that firm’s clients, with no formal record of what was discussed, and then suggest a further meeting with the firm’s founder? The due diligence said those interests should cease. They had not. Nothing in the published documents suggests that anyone asked why.
The documents also reveal that in February 2025 Mandelson advised the then Technology Secretary to include
“more positive language about AI”
in a speech to the Munich security conference. The then Secretary of State replied that it was
“all v good advice which I’ll action”—
in text speak, obviously. This, again, was while Mandelson retained his shareholding in a firm that represented OpenAI and Palantir, and while he described OpenAI’s chief executive as his “chief AI buddy”. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has today written to the independent adviser on ministers’ interests calling for an investigation into that, and she is right to do so.
Those are only the conflicts that Parliament can currently see. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, asked on Monday, and again today, whether there is any written evidence of mitigations being put in place for the other conflicts identified in the due diligence. Those include the connections to the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska; to Lan Fo’an, China’s Minister of Finance; and to Tamir Hayman, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. They also include a £1 million loan to invest in an Israeli start-up. The Chief Secretary’s response was that those documents are with the Metropolitan police, so Parliament cannot yet see whether those warnings were taken seriously or set to one side.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the reforms that this affair has made unavoidable. Government by WhatsApp must end. These documents show exactly what happens when significant business is conducted through channels that are imperfectly preserved and impossible to scrutinise. One senior Minister told Mandelson in writing that a sensitive matter was:
“A convo for the phone.”
That Minister warned:
“There is a pattern we must get out of.”
The review of non-corporate communications must produce enforceable rules, not just guidance.
The lobbying register also needs root and branch reform. An ambassador retained a commercial stake in a lobbying firm throughout his tenure, arranging meetings between the Prime Minister and clients of that firm, and it seems that the system had no mechanism to prevent it. The ministerial code must be placed in statute. Having a code the Prime Minister can choose whether to enforce is not accountability, but it appears to be, which is more corrosive.
Ultimately, those reforms will only address the system around the decision. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), observed on Monday that the Prime Minister has almost no presence in the 1,500 pages, comparing him with “The Man Who Never Was”. The response of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was that
“Prime Ministers do not sit at computers, sending emails from Outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 860.]
That may be true, but officials action decisions; they do not make them. The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was the Prime Minister’s—his judgment, his decision and his error, as he acknowledges—but the House has never received his account of that decision.
After 10 updates and 1,500 pages, the House might begin to wonder about the reasons for that absence, and I think there are three possibilities. Perhaps the Prime Minister genuinely does not know why he made the decision, and cannot reconstruct the reasoning that led him, having read the due diligence, to proceed. If so, that is alarming. A judgment of this sensitivity—involving national security, a convicted sex offender’s associate and known commercial conflicts of interest—should not be one whose reasoning evaporates without trace.
Perhaps the Prime Minister knows why he proceeded, but believes an honest answer to this House would be embarrassing, and that explaining his reasoning would require him to acknowledge something he would prefer left unexamined. If so, that is a choice to protect himself at the expense of Parliament’s right to hold him to account. Perhaps the Prime Minister may genuinely believe that repeatedly saying, “I made an error of judgment,” constitutes an adequate account of his judgment. If so, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what accountability to Parliament actually requires. None of those three possibilities reflects well on a Prime Minister who promised that integrity and accountability would define his Government.
Before taking up his post, Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), that if appointed, he would make sure the Prime Minister never regretted it. The Prime Minister has now expressed regret, but regret without explanation is not accountability. This House, and Epstein’s victims, deserve more than that: they deserve an answer.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Yesterday the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box for nearly 2.5 hours and said on at least 12 occasions that appointing Mandelson was an “error of judgment”—his judgment. He apologised and said that he took responsibility for it, but at no point—not once in that 2.5 hours—did he tell the House what his error of judgment was or exactly where he went wrong in his reasoning. That distinction matters. Saying, “I should not have appointed him,” is a description of an outcome; it is not an account of a judgment. It is like saying, “I should not have crashed the car,” without accounting for the actions that led to the crash, because whether the driver was speeding, distracted or asleep at the wheel, the answer matters. It matters for understanding what went wrong, for preventing it from happening again and for judging whether the driver should still be behind the wheel.
The difference is not a technicality; it is the difference between meaningful accountability and accountability that is merely performative, between a Prime Minister who owns his decisions and one who merely acknowledges them. Accountability to this House is not a constitutional nicety; it is the condition on which this House and the people we all represent grant the Government the authority to act at all.
We all know what was in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received in December 2024: the twice-resigned Minister, the China and Russia connections, and the Epstein association that continued after conviction. The Prime Minister received that report. He has confirmed that he knew its contents, but he proceeded anyway. That was his judgment, and it is that judgment—not the vetting process, not the Foreign Office chain of command, not Sir Olly Robbins—that this House has not been given an account of. Instead, yesterday we received a detailed, exhaustive account of what officials failed to tell him. Yet the more exhaustive the catalogue of official failures becomes, the more completely the Prime Minister’s own reasoning disappears from view. He cannot simultaneously claim an error of judgment and outsource its explanation to official failure. He has offered us an alibi instead of an explanation, an account that places him away from the scene of the crash. Yesterday’s statement was a masterclass in process—process that the Prime Minister was apparently unaware of. It was not an account of a judgment.
This morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that No. 10 showed no interest in whether Mandelson would receive clearance, only when, that there was, in his words, a “generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting, with focus only on getting him to Washington “quickly”. This is not a picture of a Prime Minister kept in the dark by officials. The alibi, it turns out, has witnesses, and they are not saying what the Prime Minister told us yesterday.
The Prime Minister has wide Executive latitude. He is entitled to make difficult appointments and to weigh competing considerations and reach conclusions that others would not reach. That is what governing requires. But the latitude is not unconditional. It comes with a democratic obligation to account for his reasoning to this House and to the people we represent—not to describe outcomes or to catalogue process, but to explain his judgment. What did the Prime Minister weigh up, what did he conclude and where in his reasoning did he think he went wrong?
Yesterday the Prime Minister told us 12 times that he made an error of judgment, but he has not told us once what that error actually was. We still do not know how he crashed that car, and this House demands an answer.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support and that of his party, which has been helpful throughout this process. On existing claims where there has been a change, the objective is to make the process as easy as possible, because I do not want to go back to the situation where people are being asked repeatedly to produce different pieces of evidence. Where there is an impact on an existing claim, the intention is absolutely to make it as easy as it can be.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to updating the House regularly on this issue. However, my constituent was infected with hepatitis C in 1993 and is still yet to receive any support because of the scheme’s original cut-off date. I know that the strict cut-off dates have been relaxed, but her cohort of the infected but never compensated—and, in some cases, never registered—still seem to be at the back of the queue. That compounds the harm and the feeling that they have been shut out for so long. Can he reassure my constituent that there will be renewed urgency on that particular cohort?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, IBCA has published a prioritisation list. It published the rationale for that and is obviously moving through that list on the basis of that prioritisation. Given that this scandal happened over decades, there is obviously an urgency—it is shared by IBCA, me and the Government more widely—to get those payments to people as quickly as possible, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Sollom Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Our world-leading universities and the research that they do are crucial to economic growth. On average, every £1 of public research and development investment generates £8 in economic benefits for the UK over the longer term. That is why this Government are investing £86 billion over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in R&D made by any Government—to support our best and brightest researchers, boost jobs and growth, and back the long-term success of the UK.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The UK’s universities do indeed produce world-class research, but I would suggest that we are still missing too many opportunities in commercialisation. The Government’s proof of concept fund is really quite inadequate—from the figures, it is 30 times oversubscribed—and equity and intellectual property arrangements are laborious and deter both investors and entrepreneurs. Will the Secretary of State commit to expanding that proof of concept funding and reforming those barriers that hold back university spin-outs?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we do not lack in great ideas or great start-ups in this country. We need to support them better to scale up, and that is what the Government are doing across a range of sectors. The hon. Gentleman can look at the actions we are taking on UK pension schemes, to get them to invest more in UK companies, and in the Treasury and across the board. I am sure there is more we can do, but it is absolutely at the top of our agenda.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Sollom Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital point. She will, like me, be horrified by the results of the Femicide Census report this week, which show a rise in mothers being killed by their sons. We must tackle that as a society. She will be pleased to know that what she is talking about will be in the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Trans people deserve dignity and respect. The Government are upholding the legal protections that Labour’s Equality Act 2010 put in place, ensuring that trans people can live free from discrimination and harassment. Work is already under way to fulfil our manifesto commitments, including the delivery of a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, the equalisation of all strands of hate crime, and a review of health services to ensure that trans people receive appropriate and high-quality care.
Ian Sollom
The Minister will be aware that many trans people with gender recognition certificates followed all the legal processes in good faith, often over many years, and made legally binding commitments to live in their required gender for life. Yet now that they find themselves legally bound to live in one gender, they are at the same time being denied access to services and facilities aligned with that gender. How does the Minister plan to resolve those contradictory legal obligations, and what will she do to provide immediate support to the trans community?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the importance of gender recognition certificates. Let me be absolutely clear to this House, as I have been on many occasions: no one, including trans people, should suffer indignity or a lack of respect. They must of course have access to safe provisions and appropriate services. However, the Supreme Court ruling was clear that biological sex is the means by which single-sex provision will be delivered.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that work in her community. The Government have commissioned NHS England to undertake a LGBT health evidence review, which is being led by Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser on LGBT health. It will diagnose the problems we need to solve, making sure we have evidence-led recommendations in order to improve access to healthcare for adults.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with some more details of his constituent’s case, I would be happy to make sure it is looked into by Ministers and that he receives a full response.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
Ian Sollom Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, on consultation, my hon. Friend is right. I am determined that we are going to get this right. Secondly, as I indicated in my statement with regard to the organisations and recommendation 10 of Sir Brian Langstaff’s May 2024 report, DHSC is looking not only at this year again, but to the future. My work in recent weeks speaking to charities has made it clear that they want to look beyond this financial year, and I agree.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we have people who are infected and people who are affected in a terrible way by this scandal, and he speaks powerfully about Helen and the particular circumstances she finds herself in. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with Helen. I have not, to my knowledge, seen the piece of correspondence that he is talking about, but if he wants to write to me directly at the Cabinet Office about Helen’s circumstances, I am happy to look at that. I should add that I expect payments to the affected to begin by the end of this year.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for today’s update. Although I welcome the progress that has been made on the compensation scheme, as he has highlighted, I once again have to highlight the case of my constituent who was infected with hepatitis C during a transplant operation when she was 15. She has suffered terrible physical and mental illness throughout most of her life. The fact that she was infected in 1993, after the cut-off date for the support scheme, means that she has had no formal acknowledgment of her suffering from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and no support payments or interim payments. Can the Minister formally address the concerns of unregistered infected people from that period from 1991 to 1996, when we know people were still being infected, and commit to urgently recognising their suffering and the urgency of their compensation claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, given the terrible experience that she has clearly had. With regard to the category of victims he is talking about—unregistered, living, infected people—he is absolutely right to raise their position. The objective of this compensation scheme is to ensure that every victim, whatever their circumstances, receives the compensation they are due, and that obviously includes his constituent.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Labour promised free breakfast clubs in every primary school, and the first 750 will open in April, giving every child the best start in life through our plan for change. It will also put up to £450 a year back in the pockets of working families. I am delighted to say that two of the breakfast clubs will be opening in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition in April, and I hope she will welcome them when they do.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridge-shire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, because it is a duty to increase our spending on defence and security, but it also provides an opportunity for jobs across the country—good jobs, well-paid jobs, skilled jobs, as he rightly identifies, and jobs with a real sense of pride, and we are working on that.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Ian Sollom Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Like others, I welcome the progress on the compensation scheme. Also like others, I would like to draw attention to two of my constituents who have suffered, and continue to suffer, because of the infected blood scandal.
First, there is my constituent who was infected with hepatitis C in 1993, two years after the cut-off date for the infected blood support scheme. As she told me at my surgery last week, her life has been utterly devastated. Her sense of betrayal is felt even more keenly because at the point of her infection all blood should have been tested for hepatitis C by law. She has suffered terrible physical and mental illness for most of her life, including infertility and anxiety from the stigma of her illness—which is why I do not mention her name—and she has experienced an impact on her personal relationships and career.
It was a cruel insult that my constituent, because she was infected after 1991 and was therefore not eligible for the infected blood support scheme, has been unable to access the crucial help that she needs to deal with the impacts I have mentioned. I welcome the removal of those cut-off dates in the new scheme, but I urge the Government urgently to provide proper clarity on how the new scheme will work for her and others like her who were infected after 1991. They need the details of exactly how it will work for them, and when they can expect to review the compensation that they so greatly deserve.
Secondly, I would like to mention the case of my constituent whose mother sadly died from hepatitis C in 1998. In his communications with me, he has pointed out that the information available on the gov.uk website is very confusing, as others have mentioned. He finds it often poorly written, which only adds to his frustration and emotional stress. Understandably, his main concern is that payments to the estates of those who have died from being given infected blood will be deprioritised and not excluded from any heads of loss. As others have pointed out, processes that delay these payments will result in many elderly affected people dying before receiving anything. Can the Government give assurances that siblings and children left behind now and in future will have the compensation safeguarded and will also receive what they rightly deserve?