Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is just that if he looks at the wording of the Humble Address, he will see that it lists a series of classes of documents, and then it says, “except papers”—those that were referred to the ISC. That is our compliance with the motion.

Let me turn back to the process, which, as I said, was undertaken by officials. They sought returns from all Government Departments, including material, as has been referred to, on non-corporate communication channels. There were multiple rounds of discovery to ensure that searches returned material relevant to the full scope of the motion. Some documents were assessed as likely prejudicial to national security or international relations—the point I was just making—and, as I committed to the House in February, they were then referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Due to the wide scope of the motion and the significant volume of material that needed to be located and reviewed, the first publication, on 11 March, was focused on the parts of the motion that were of most urgent interest to the House: Peter Mandelson’s appointment, his withdrawal and the severance. The second tranche, which was published on Monday, contains material relevant to the parts of the motion that cover communications and documents concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment and vetting, and messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and senior civil servants in the months prior to and throughout his tenure as ambassador. All documents held by the Government have now been disclosed, save those that are being withheld on the request of the Metropolitan police.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

On the point of communication between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, the fact remains that the more documents that are released, the more questions emerge about Peter Mandelson’s reach across Government. Will the Minister tell the House whether Lord Mandelson had any discussions whatsoever with Ministers, officials or advisers about Palantir? Will further documentation with regards to that be released?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On Palantir, I refer my hon. Friend to the methodology statement at the start of each of the three volumes, where it is made absolutely clear that there is a recognition that Palantir is a matter of interest to the House; indeed, there are references to Palantir within the documents. As I am sure the House will understand, I will not speculate on the contents of the documents that remain with the Metropolitan police, but certainly I invite everyone to look at the references to Palantir in the tranche of documents before the House—indeed, the public can do so as well.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger]

Let me finish.

The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.

[Alex Ballinger]

That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.

I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.

I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

No, I will not.

While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.

[Imran Hussain]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

In a bit.

I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.

This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I have a better understanding of the culture in No. 10 than my hon. Friend does. I absolutely expect that the British public understand that the apology put forward by the Prime Minister has been full and unequivocal and that he has not messed about on that.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions; I just wanted to clarify whether he felt that I should refer myself to the independent adviser.

I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the independent adviser, which came out on Friday of last week and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct, because the process that the Government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately. The process itself, as the Prime Minister said again this morning, is clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.

Middle East

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that really important case on behalf of really important victims, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those victims. Every report of a sexual offence should be treated seriously, every victim should be treated with dignity, and every investigation should be conducted professionally. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is meeting the victims, and if the hon. Gentleman gives me the full details, I will make sure that his constituent is part of and included in those meetings.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q9. We have all heard the horrific news that a man entered Manchester Central mosque last night in this, the holy month of Ramadan, carrying weapons including a hammer, a knife and an axe. Violent and Islamophobic attacks against the Muslim community are becoming far too frequent in our country. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and I mean every politician, especially that lot over there—[Interruption.] They may nod their heads, but this morning we could have woken up to news of a horrific terrorist attack, in which innocent Muslim worshippers were killed only for being Muslim. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and every single journalist, has a responsibility to stop fanning the flames of hatred against the Muslim community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important case. Let me tell him that I share his deep concern, and the deep concern of the community, over the incident at Manchester Central mosque—particularly as it took place during the holy month of Ramadan—and that we will not, and must not, relent in the fight against anti-Muslim hatred. We must not.

I remember visiting Peacehaven mosque in the wake of the awful attack there, and when I did, I committed £40 million to protecting mosques and community centres. It is a shame that we have to do that, but we do have to do it, and we are establishing a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we will fight hatred and protect freedom of worship in this country.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I think that the right hon. Member talks down the country. The UK is rightly proud of the freedom of the press and its role in our democracy, and I know that both his party and mine support those principles. He has referred to allegations being made, and that is why an independent process is looking at the veracity of those allegations and any denial that is put. As soon as its advice has been made available, it will be put to the Prime Minister to make a call on it.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The vicious actions of Labour Together are despicable. Any attack on the freedom of our press and individuals is unforgivable. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister keeps referring to an independent ethics adviser while at the same time admitting that his only remit is the ministerial code of conduct. He needs to be reminded that the actions that have been referred to took place before the Minister concerned was in office. These actions are such that they will cause irreparable and tremendous harm to the Government and our party. Only an independent investigation into all the actions of Labour Together will suffice. Why will he not understand that?

[Darren Jones]

The investigation that the Government are conducting in relation to the Minister is independent. The ethics adviser is independent, as I have alluded to a number of times. The independent ethics adviser is able to look at the ministerial code as well as the circumstances in relation to the questions put to him, and his advice will make reference to that when he comes to advise the Prime Minister. I know that the hon. Member will be disappointed by this, but the Government cannot instigate an investigation into a private organisation unless there is a legal basis to do so. It is a question for the board of Labour Together whether they wish to undertake any work on the allegations that have been made in the media.

Digital ID

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

There is a reason why millions of people have signed this petition, making it the fourth largest in the history of this place. At the heart of this debate is an attack on our most fundamental and protected of rights: our freedom. We live in a free country, and we do not need a nanny state indirectly spying on its citizens.

A compulsory digital ID or a national ID card scheme is not a small administrative tweak that will make lives slightly easier for people; it is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Like many others in this place, I have serious concerns about what that means for civil liberties, for privacy and for equality in this country. No Government should ever hold a master key to every part of a citizen’s life, and we cannot pretend that such power could never fall into dangerous hands.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as usual. Does he agree, from the clear argument across the Chamber, that constituents are overwhelmingly unconvinced by the proposed benefits of this scheme and overwhelmingly concerned by the disbenefits; and that therefore the Minister should commit today to ensuring that at the end of the consultation, the Government have the option of not taking this any further?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why millions have signed this petition. The Minister should commit to scrapping it today, but I am not sure he will.

As is the case for many hon. Members, thousands of my constituents have quite rightly signed this petition because they know that they are already at the sharp end of state systems that do not always treat them fairly. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, migrants, older and disabled people, those on low incomes and those who are digitally excluded—these are the people who will feel the impact first if we rush headlong into a digital ID system without thinking through the consequences.

We have already seen how data can be misused, both in our country and across the world. In the wrong circumstances, information given in good faith to access childcare, education, healthcare or support can end up being misused. Frankly, trust in our institutions has been eroding for years now.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a passionate, excellent speech. Talking of trust in the Government, we have just seen the BBC documentary on the Camelford water poisoning scandal in my constituency—a potential Government cover-up. How on earth can my constituents trust the Government with all their important data? Does he agree that this is the wrong priority? The Government hope to save half a billion pounds with the family farm tax, yet they are prepared to splash £2 billion on this—something that, it seems from this debate, none of our constituents actually want.

[Imran Hussain]

I have already said that I believe the policy should be scrapped. The hon. Member has his own reasons, and I have outlined mine. One thing we are both agreed on is that trust in institutions is eroding, and families do not feel they can engage even with basic services. If we create a centralised digital identity system, we risk increasing that harm and mistrust. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we risk creating a two-tier system.

It is completely absurd that the Government are going above and beyond to connect information that is siloed for very good reason. Governments do not need the ability to casually track their citizens, but that is what the policy will effectively do. We have heard much today—we have been told that this is about efficiency and modernisation—but we must ask: at what cost?

Once the infrastructure for mass identification is built, the pressure to expand its use grows over time. What starts as a way to prove a person’s identity quickly becomes a tool to track where people go, what they access and even who they are with. That is a road that we should be wary of travelling down.

The UK has rightly rejected national ID schemes under successive Governments in the past, so again I urge this Government to announce concrete measures—actually, I want them to scrap this scheme today, because I am afraid that it is another one on which they will eventually have to do a U-turn. Three million people have signed a petition, and I think the Minister should announce the scrapping of this dangerous scheme. We should be investing in digital inclusion, strengthening existing verification systems and putting strict limits on data sharing, not introducing the scheme before us today.

Time not permitting any further comment, I want to put on record today my position. Hon. Members may already have gathered what that position may be, but just to be absolutely clear, I stand with the constituents of Bradford East, as I always do, and I will be opposing this dangerous policy.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will just make a bit of progress, and then I will take further interventions.

Finally in relation to the duty of candour, it is underpinned by a new criminal offence of misleading the public, which is aimed squarely at public servants who wilfully mislead the British people in a reckless, intentional or improper way. In cases such as Hillsborough, lies and dishonesty from the state grievously harmed the very people it was supposed to serve, and that must never happen again.

However, the Bill is not just about the duty of candour, because anyone familiar with how justice failed families and victims must also recognise that the lack of parity in our legal system played a significant role. I remember Margaret Aspinall—I met her many years ago now, and she is with us today—telling me that she had to scrape together every last penny for legal representation, including the money paid out by insurers for the death of her son James, who at the time was pretty much the same age as my son who comes to football with me. That is what she had to do, and we have to recognise that injustice piled on the other injustices.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely extend that tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who I think was at the game and who has campaigned tirelessly in this place and beyond to help us get to the position today where we can introduce the Bill. I do pay tribute to him and I am very pleased to do so from this Dispatch Box, as we introduce this important legislation.

Trade Negotiations

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I can give the House that assurance. I thought we were going to have an uncharacteristically warm endorsement from the hon. Gentleman until he got to the word “however”. I have to say, we have been so busy negotiating a trade deal with India that we have not had the chance to read the First Minister’s “Programme for Government” today. In the spirit of generosity, he pays tribute to the work that has been done on whisky, and I will read out the statement by Debra Crew, the Diageo chief executive, who said:

“The UK-India Free Trade Agreement is a huge achievement by Prime Ministers Modi and Starmer and Ministers Goyal and Reynolds, and all of us at Diageo toast their success. It will be transformational for Scotch and Scotland, while powering jobs and investment in both India and the UK.”

I could not have put it better myself.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As has already been said, negotiating a trade deal on beneficial terms is hugely significant, particularly with regard to the recent trade war initiated by Trump. However, I have come to this House countless times to raise the issue of human rights violations and abuses against the Kashmiris by the Indian Government, and I will do so again today. Can the Minister tell me whether the persecution of Kashmiri journalists and human rights activists has been raised at any point during these negotiations, and whether he will return to this House, before he signs on the dotted line in a few months, with a full response detailing exactly how the UK Government are upholding their international human rights obligations, and not undermining efforts to defend Kashmiri human rights?

[Mr Alexander]

The United Kingdom is a leading advocate for human rights around the world, and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. The horrific recent terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir was utterly devastating, and my thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones and the people of India. It is, however, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution and resolution to the Kashmir dispute, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This week, we progressed our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to deliver counter-terrorism style powers to bring vile criminal smuggling gangs to justice. We announced a further £350 million to get Britain building and deliver 1.5 million new homes that our country desperately needs, including more affordable homes. We have also slashed the red tape that holds businesses and working people back, creating 10,000 more apprentices.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Imran Hussain]

I am proud to have played my part in helping to draft what has become the Employment Rights Bill. A new poll shows that three quarters of the British public back the stronger workers’ rights in the Bill, including better sick pay, yet that lot over there—the Tories and Reform—disgracefully voted against it. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition does not even believe in maternity pay or the living wage. Our statutory sick pay is ranked as one of the lowest in Europe; it needs to be brought in line with the living wage. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to strengthen the Bill further so that sick pay is at a level that will finally stop punishing workers for being sick?

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan for change delivers the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation through our Employment Rights Bill, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and the scandal of fire and rehire and expanding statutory sick pay to 1.3 million employees. Of course, that is on top of the pay rise for 3 million of the lowest paid. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might support the protection of day one employment rights, given where she is going, but she thinks maternity pay is excessive. Our plan is pro-worker and pro-growth.