Lord Mandelson

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Graham Stuart

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

Non-proliferation Treaty: 50th Anniversary Review

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a pleasure to be back. I am grateful to Members for returning to the debate.

We remain committed to our article 6 obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict remains a priority and we believe that short-term progress, in line with many of the contributions we have had, is achievable. We should seek to foster dialogue, which many Members have mentioned, both among states possessing nuclear weapons and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.

Although we recognise that work on risk reduction does not replace disarmament obligations, we see it as a complementary and necessary step to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. We will continue to work with international partners, civil society and academia to build mutual trust and create the environment for further progress on disarmament.

The UK works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguard system and the International Atomic Energy Agency through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. We will encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We will promote the ratification of security conventions and seek universal commitment to the additional protocol and a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which together provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and will strengthen the non-proliferation architecture. Nevertheless, the UK recognises that significant regional risks remain, particularly from Iran and North Korea. They have been highlighted in the debate. We are working hard to combat the risk of proliferation and remain firmly committed to ensuring coherence to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure global safety and stability.

Finally, the UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies, enabled by the NPT. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change, for instance, not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications such as helping to improve food security and agricultural resilience. The technologies can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change. They are also vital to global health, as they are used to treat cancer and prevent the spread of insect-borne disease. We want the review conference to highlight the significant global contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear technology makes to improving people’s lives and advancing progress to the UN sustainable development goals.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in the outline that the Minister is giving us of what will happen in New York. Could he assure us—I think a number of my colleagues raised the question—that Britain will be represented by a suitably empowered delegation that can take part in serious discussions about building alliances for the future? These conferences do not normally come to a huge conclusion themselves, but they often point to a direction for the future. I would like assurance that this country will be adequately represented, so that we can go forward on this. Also, can we possibly offer up at least a reduction in nuclear stockpiles as part of our negotiations?

[Graham Stuart]

It is not our practice to announce in advance who will be attending. What I can tell him is that we are very much looking forward to it. It has already been delayed. I hope that the rest of my speech has made clear that we take this as a serious opportunity and aim to make the most of it.

We have published a working paper on a new sustained dialogue on peaceful uses, which aims to help overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies. We continue to urge all non-NPT states to sign and ratify the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.

There are a number of issues, and I will try to deal with some that have been raised. The spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, raised the point that the UK supports the universalisation of the NPT. Though we cannot force any state to join, we discuss the importance of the NPT with all states at all levels, and whenever we engage with states. We regularly seek to encourage India and Pakistan, for example, to join the NPT.

On Scotland hosting nuclear weapons, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a national endeavour benefiting the whole of the UK, and it underpins the security of this nation and that of our allies. By way of information, I note that recent opinion polls show that Trident enjoys 58% support among young Scots, even though the SNP and Green Ministers in the Scottish Government wish to see us remove it and even leave NATO altogether—[Interruption.] I do not think the SNP can have it both ways. It wants to have an independent Scotland and join NATO, which is perhaps what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) will say, while also removing part of its nuclear deterrent.

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, that is a matter for the UK Government, and this Parliament of the Union reflects the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) requested that we should put on paper our position on the New York conference. I have already directed him to our November 2021 national report, and I am confident that the Government will update the House after the rev con in due course.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North about having a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, we remain committed to that and firmly believe it can be achieved only by consensus of all the states of the region. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to push for that.

I hope that has addressed most of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made. The right hon. Member for Islington North also made a point about the humanitarian impact. The UK recognises the importance of engaging with the humanitarian consequences debate and listening to the views of non-nuclear weapon states. However, we believe that that conference was co-opted by civil society organisations to press for unilateral disarmament, which obviously is not the policy of this country. It was on that basis that the UK decided not to attend.

I hope that I have dealt reasonably with right hon. and hon. Members’ points. We will be able to discuss any further ones following the New York conference, and I look forward to working with Members of different parties in doing so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In response to what the Minister just said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said earlier, after the NPT conference will the Minister be in a position to make a statement or ensure there is a debate, so that Members of the House can raise in discussion what actually happened at the conference? Too often, these conferences have huge energy put into them but there is not much parliamentary discussion afterwards. If the Minister was prepared to guarantee that there will be some kind of statement, that would be very helpful.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that fresh in my post as I am, I am not yet briefed as to whether I am in a position to guarantee that, but I am quite sure that Members in this Chamber are more than capable of ensuring that we follow up on that conference, whether in this format or another. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I would hope that would occur, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it must not disappear from parliamentary debate or drift out of sight.

To conclude, the NPT remains essential to the maintenance of a safe and secure world, and I am delighted to have such cross-party support for that. At the 10th review conference, the UK is ready to work with all states parties and partners from across the international community and civil society to achieve a meaningful outcome that contributes to the preservation, universal adoption and, of course, full, ultimate implementation of that treaty, which had such foresight so many decades ago.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

The argument against the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park is that powerful interests would come along and act. It always strikes me that the vulnerability of British politics to money is tremendous; yet I suggest that the cases in which it is abused are remarkably few and far between, notwithstanding the righteous efforts of the hon. Gentleman to highlight those he comes across. I simply ask him why we should not give this a chance for a Parliament. If the public in a local area was of the opinion that there had been an abuse, people would be able to divine who was behind such an attempt and see through what was behind it, even if the person named as bringing it forward was a front person. Time will tell: we perhaps need to give it a chance to find out whether that is true or not.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I support the principles behind the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that over the years there have been systematic intense media campaigns against Members of the House—Tam Dalyell, Tony Benn and others—as can be seen just from reading the newspaper headlines of the time. It is quite conceivable that a media campaign with a huge amount of money behind it could succeed in getting rid of a Member of Parliament who was taking unpopular decisions. That is big money: it might not be big money paid to individuals, but it is big money influencing public opinion.

[Mr Stuart]

Ultimately, however, it would not be the press barons but our electorates who decided. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that our electorates are easily moulded by the tabloid press, I point out that the public would decide, not the press barons. That goes back to the earlier point that this is about trusting the public to exercise their judgment and come to the right conclusion.