Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Opposition day debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite: Oleg Deripaska. That relationship may be just as bad as the one he had with Epstein. As European trade commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Deripaska’s company by $200 million a year. Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Deripaska. How can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his Government appointed Mandelson as a Minister? Do you agree that this House needs to see that information, and if so, how can we obtain it?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and I know that he will pursue this through the many avenues available. He might wish to catch the Chair’s eye during today’s debate in order to raise those issues. The issues that he has raised are very serious and will be taken seriously. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have heard his comments.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, who has now left the Chamber, said that each Humble Address that his party laid in opposition mentioned national security. However, I have checked the two most recent Humble Addresses laid by the Labour party when it was in opposition, and all Labour Members should be aware that the words “national security” do not feature even once, because it is not necessary in an Humble Address. So how can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he has chosen just to leave the room? [Hon. Members: “Call him back!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t be ridiculous.

I say to the hon. Lady that she had put this on the record—[Interruption.] I do not want to continue the debate. She has put it on the record, so it is there.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the appellants were instructed by public interest lawyers including one Keir Starmer QC. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to return to the House and clarify his earlier remarks.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not here to continue a debate. You have put it on the record, and we will leave it at that.