Lord Mandelson

Debate between Kieran Mullan and Polly Billington

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Billington]

I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will turn to some of those later. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum but across decades, where people’s talent—predominantly men’s talent—has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character, and we do need to consider behaviour and character.

[Dr Mullan]

I think that, by refusing to believe the victims over Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson is an example of misogyny, and I think the Prime Minister, by deciding to appoint someone who remained friends with Epstein, is an example of passive consent. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Ms Billington]

I will continue to explain in my remarks why I think this is a moment where we need to draw a line under that passive and active consent that we have seen for far too long across all political spectrums and across the decades, where people have turned a blind eye to bad behaviour.

We need to know, and to apply our judgment to, whether somebody is suitable for public life not just because of their talent, but because of their probity. We have many systems in this place, in our Government and in our wider political environment that are supposed to protect the public and our institutions from people who do not have the appropriate probity for public life.

My concern and the concern of many of my constituents, of people across the country and of my colleagues in this House is that, in some ways, individual people’s apparent talent for politics is seen as something that justifies turning a blind eye to their character, their associations and their judgment. I know and understand the importance of acting to ensure that national security is not put at risk. I only wish that we could all be so sure that the former ambassador to the United States had similar concerns.

I am less convinced by the language of “international relations” in the Government’s amendment. I seek clarity from the Minister for the justification for such a broad term, especially when, by the very virtue of the nature of the relationships that should be under scrutiny via the transparency to which the Government say they are committed, the relationship between our country and others may well have been exposed to risk. Will the Minister explain how the Government will distinguish between material that is prejudicial to national security and international relations, and that which is not?

There are deeply concerning reports in the media that the Government amendment is a convenient catch-all to prevent material from being published. For that reason, I seek assurances from the Minister that the Government have a plan to facilitate maximum transparency by handing over relevant sensitive documents and communications to the relevant Select Committees. The Paymaster General said that there should be scrutiny by the ISC of the Cabinet Secretary’s approach. However, that is not the same as the Committee being given the material and having full oversight of it.

I am sympathetic to the expressions of concern by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). People voted Labour for change. People are convinced that we are all the same. This is a moment when probity in public life is on the line. The Government can go one of two ways: we can have a culture of certain people being “worth the risk”, or decide to draw a line under that, and agree that there will no longer be situations in which individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.